MFA No. 143 of 2008 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Appeal is allowed
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinionthat the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest from the date ofapplication on the facts of this case and exercised judicial discretionin granting interest as the claimants were not responsible for thedelay. Hence, we award simple…
Judgment
J.B. Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ.-------------------------------------- M.F.A. No.143 of 2008---------------------------------------Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J.First appellant lost her son at the age of 34 in anuntoward accident that took place on 15.11.2001 at a place calledUluberia while travelling from Howrah to Chennai by train No.2841Coromandal Express. He accidentally fell down from the train whenthe train reached at Uluberia near Birshibpur station and died. Second respondent is the wife of the deceased. Tribunal awardedcompensation of Rupees Four lakhs. Pendente lite interest was notawarded. Railway was directed to pay Rupees Four lakhs within 45days and only 9% interest was awarded from the date of default. The amount of compensation payable is prescribed under the Rules. The appellants lost all their support from the date of accident itself. Discretion of the Tribunal in granting interest should be exercisedjudiciously.
It is true that there is no specific provision for grantinginterest from the date of application, but, compensation is paid tooffset the loss suffered by the claimants due to the untoward M.A.C.A. No. 143/2008 2incident. The Railway ought to have paid the amount at the time ofaccident itself and, in any event, at the time when it received thecopy of the application. The appellants are not responsible for thedelay and claimants have to be compensated. In this connection, we refer to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Thankaraj(2000 ACJ 651) and also the following decisions of the Hon'bleSupreme Court in Union of India v. Laxmi Pati (1995 ACJ 791);Avalakki v. Union of India (2001 ACJ 1258); Union of India v. OinamKeirungba Meetel (2008 ACJ 783 - Gauhati); Prasant KumarChoudhury v. Union of India (2008 ACJ 685); Union of India andothers v. Smt. Shamim and others (AIR 2008 Rajasthan 99) and N.Parameswaran Pillai and another v. Union of India and another((2002) 4 SCC 306).
In the above circumstances, we are of the opinionthat the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest from the date ofapplication on the facts of this case and exercised judicial discretionin granting interest as the claimants were not responsible for thedelay. Hence, we award simple interest at the rate of 7.5% perannum from the date of application till the date of payment of award M.A.C.A. No. 143/2008 3amount considering the bank rate of interest prevailing at the timeof passing the award in addition to the awarded amount. The awardis modified accordingly. Appeal is allowed. J.B.Koshy Judge K.P. Balachandran Judge vaa M.A.C.A. No. 143/2008 4 J.B. KOSHY ANDK.P.BALACHANDRAN,JJ.-------------------------------------M.F.A. No. 143/2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Date:29th October,2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is allowed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 29 Oct 2008. The bench was K P BALACHANDRAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.