J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph v. Thankaraj(2000 ACJ 651); Union of India v. Laxmi Pati (1995 ACJ 791);Avalakki & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Appeal is allowed
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest from the date of application on the facts of this case and exercised judicial discretion M.F.A.No.181/2008 3to grant interest as the claimants were not responsible for the…
Judgment
J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ.-------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 181 of 2008---------------------------------------Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J.Wife of the first appellant died in an untoward incident that took place on 16.4.2006 at Cheruthana. It is contended that the deceased, along with her three children, boarded train No.6346Trivandrum-Lokmanya Thilak Netravathi Express from Kollamrailway station to go to Kuttippuram, that as there was heavy rush of passengers in the general compartment, they were standing near the washbasin, that when the train reached Cheruthana, due to an unexpected sudden jerk of the train, wife of the first appellant fell down accidentally from the train and that she succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. Contention of the respondent-railway was that the deceased fell down from the train due to her own negligent act as she was standing near the door and, therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. After considering the evidence, it was found by the Tribunal that the deceased was a bonafide passenger in train No.6346 Trivandrum-Lokmanya Thilak Netravathi Express M.F.A.No.181/2008 2and she died due to fall from the train accidentally and the same isan untoward incident.
Appellants contended that they are not at all responsible for the delay.
It is true that there is no specific provision for granting interest from the date of application, but, compensation is paid to offset the loss suffered by the claimants due to the untoward incident. The Railway ought to have paid the amount at the time of accident itself and, in any event, at the time when it received the copy of the application. The appellants are not responsible for the delay and they have to be compensated. In this connection, we refer to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Thankaraj(2000 ACJ 651); 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 and others 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 opinion that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest from the date of application on the facts of this case and exercised judicial discretion M.F.A.No.181/2008 3to grant interest as the claimants were not responsible for the delay. Appellants claimed only 6% interest. Hence, we award simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of award amount considering the bank rate of interest prevailing at the time of passing the award. The award is modified accordingly. Appeal is allowed. J.B.Koshy Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge vaa M.F.A.No.181/2008 4 J.B. KOSHY ANDTHOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ.-------------------------------------M.F.A.No. 181/2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Date:20th November,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 20 Nov 2008. The bench was THOMAS P JOSEPH.
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.