J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph v. Thankaraj (2000 ACJ651); Union of India v. Laxmi Pati (1995 ACJ 791) & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Appeal is allowed
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. 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 discretionto grant interest as the claimants were not responsible for the delay. Appellants claimed only…
Judgment
J.B. Koshy & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ.-------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 185 of 2008---------------------------------------Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J.Husband of the first appellant died in an untowardaccident that took place on 6.8.2003. It is contended by theappellants that the deceased was travelling from Rameswaram to Palakkad in train No.764 passenger train on 6.8.2003, that due tothe sudden jerk of the train, he was pushed out of the train at Oddanchatram railway station and that he sustained severe injuriesand succumbed to it on the spot. Contention of the respondent-railway was that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger whofell down from the train accidentally. After considering theevidence, it was found by the Tribunal that the deceased was abona fide passenger in train No.764 on 6.8.2003.
Appellants contended that they are not at allresponsible for the delay.
It is true that there is no specific provision forgranting interest from the date of application, but, compensation ispaid to offset the loss suffered by the claimants due to the untowardaccident. The Railway ought to have paid the amount at the timeof accident itself and, in any event, at the time when it received thecopy of the application. Appellants are not responsible for thedelay and they have to be compensated. In this connection, we refer M.F.A.No.185/2008 2to the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Thankaraj (2000 ACJ651); Union of India v. Laxmi Pati (1995 ACJ 791); Avalakki v. Unionof India (2001 ACJ 1258); Union of India v. Oinam Keirungba Meetel(2008 ACJ 783 - Gauhati); Prasant Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India (2008 ACJ 685); Union of India and others v. Smt. Shamim andothers (AIR 2008 Rajasthan 99) and N. Parameswaran Pillai andanother 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 discretionto grant interest as the claimants were not responsible for the delay. Appellants claimed only 6% interest. Hence, we award simpleinterest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application tillthe date of payment of award amount considering the bank rate ofinterest prevailing at the time of passing the award. The award ismodified accordingly. Appeal is allowed. J.B.Koshy Judge Thomas P. Joseph Judge vaa M.F.A.No.185/2008 3 J.B. KOSHY ANDTHOMAS P.JOSEPH,JJ.-------------------------------------M.F.A.No. 185/2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Date:26th 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 26 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.