1. I.A.No. 1336/2010 is an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal under section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is contended therein that the claim case was preferred by the appellant after death of her husband who while travelling as a bonafide passenger met with an untoward incident to which he succumbed. It is urged that after death of her husband there is no male member in the family and the local counsel who was entrusted with the brief did not advise appellant properly as such she could not file appeal within time stipulated under the Statute.

2. It is urged that, delay is bonafide and appellant is interested in prosecuting appeal. It is further urged that since the appellant was pitched against the circumstances which were beyond her control, therefore, also the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent on his turn has orally objected to the application for condonation of delay.

4. Having regard to the contentions put-forth in the application and the averments of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of considered opinion that good ground is made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

5. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

6. I.A.No. 7048/2010 is disposed of accordingly.

7. The appeal is admitted for hearing.

8. With consent the matter is heard finally.

9. As apparent, the appeal is directed against the award dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bench at Bhopal in Case No. O.A. II/287/2004; wherein, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/along with interest @ 7% per annum. However, the grant of interest has been deferred for a period of two months. It is this part of the order which the appellant is aggrieved of.

10. It is urged that the Tribunal fell in patent error in deferring the grant of interest on the award. It is contended that the interest ought to have been granted to the appellant from the date of institution of proceeding before the Tribunal and not from any deferred date.

11. The issue as to whether the interest is to be ordered from the date of filing of application or from the date of award is no more res integra and has been settled at rest by the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others v. Union of India and another, AIR 2009 SC 3098, wherein, it is held by Their Lordships :-

"16. It is, therefore, clear that the Court, while making a decree for payment of money is entitled to grant interest at the current rate of interest or contractual rate as it deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged to be payable and/or awarded, from the date of claim or from the date of the order or decree for recovery of the outstanding dues. There is also hardly any room for doubt that interest may be claimed on any amount decreed or awarded for the period during which the money was due and yet remained unpaid to the claimants.

17-18. The Courts are consistent in their view that normally when a money decree is passed, it is most essential that interest be granted for the period during which the money was due, but could not be utilized by the person in whose favour an order of recovery of money was passed. As has been frequently explained by this Court and various High Courts, interest is essential a compensation payable on account of denial of the right to utilize the money due, which has been, in fact, utilized by the person withholding the same. Accordingly, payment of interest follows as a matter of course when a money decree is passed. The only question to be decided is since when is such interest payable on such a decree. Though there are two divergent views, one indicating that interest is payable from the date when claim for the principal sum is made, namely, the date of institution of the proceedings in the recovery of the amount, the other view is that such interest is payable only, when a determination is made and order is passed for re