The Railway Claims Tribunal has the power to award interest on the compensation amount under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even though there is no specific provision for interest in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, or the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.

JUDGMENT :

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved against the award of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Madras branch in OAII/22 of 1993, dated 3.6.1995, Southern Railway represented by its General Manager, Chennai-3, has filed the present appeal u/s 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, before this Court.

2. The respondents herein, applicant Nos. 1 and 2 before the Railway Claims Tribunal have made a claim for Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation alleging that their son J. Sunil died in the railway accident which occurred on 1.6.1993 at 11.50 p.m. in train No. 6635 Kurla Express at Samalpatti in Dharmapuri District. Apart from the abovesaid amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- the applicants have also claimed a sum of Rs. 1,200/- for the loss of one briefcase and further cash of Rs. 700/-. The said application was resisted by the Railway contending that as per the death list of passengers prepared during the accident and submitted by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Palghat, Southern Railway, the name of J. Sunil, son of the applicants was not found. However, they admitted that four dead bodies remained unidentified as per the said list.

3. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after considering the case of both parties, came to the conclusion that J. Sunil, son of the applicants died in the train accident which occurred on 1.6.1993 at 11.50 p.m. at Samalpatti in Dharmapuri District; accordingly passed an award for Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the applicants with interest on the said amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of recovery with costs.

4. Aggrieved by the said award the Southern Railway has filed the present appeal mainly questioning the grant of interest on the award amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

5. I have heard Mr. B.S. Gnanadesikan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Karthikeyan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. Even at the outset Mr. Gnanadesikan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that they are very much aggrieved only with regard to the award of interest for the compensation amount, since there is no provision in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, and Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989. According to him, in the absence of any specific provision either in the Act or in the Rules regarding interest, it is not open to the Tribunal to award interest. Hence, according to him, the award of the Tribunal insofar as the interest is concerned is liable to be set aside. While spearheading the above argument he has taken me through the various provisions of the Act and Rules. On the other hand, Mr. Karthikeyan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that by virtue of the special Act, viz., Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the aggrieved parties are barred from approaching the civil Court, hence even in the absence of any provision of the Act and rules in view of fact that some of the provisions of the CPC are made applicable and in view of Section 34 of the CPC the claimants are entitled to interest and the Tribunal is justified in granting such interest.

7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

8. As stated earlier, even though the Southern Railway has disputed the fact that the son of the claimants died in the accident, the Railway Claims Tribunal on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that their son, J. Sunil, died in the train accident as contended by the applicants. Hence, there is no need to discuss the above aspect further.

9. Now, I shall consider the only objection whether the claimants are entitled to interest for the compensation amount and whether the Tribunal is empowered or competent to award such interest.

10. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, came into force with effect from 28.12.1987. The statement of objects and reasons shows that the substantive liability of the railway administration for loss, destruction, damage, non-delivery or the deterioration of goods entrusted