Dinanath Nagpal Anr v. Union of India Anr.), whereby the claim petition filed by the

: Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Balwada, Adv. with Mr. Aditya Raj, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 08/05/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment and award dated 01.06.2007 passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in O.A. No. II-79/2001 (Dinanath Nagpal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants has been partly allowed in their favour and award of Rs.4,00,000/- has been passed in favour of the appellants, but no order as to interest has been passed in their favour.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants-appellants filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench under Sec. 16 of RCT Act, 1987 read with Sec. 125 of the Railway Act, 1989 claiming compensation to [2025:RJ-JP:19561] (2 of 4) [CMA-1822/2011] the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of death of their son i.e. Virendra Kumar Nagpal, who died on 27.6.2001 while he was travelling from Jaipur to Kota by Train No.2956 UP i.e. Jaipur-Mumbai Super fast and accidentally fell down from the running train, the deceased Virendra Kumar sustained multiple injuries and died during the course of treatment at MBS Hospital Kota. FIR to the said incident was also registered at Railway Police Station, Kota bearing FIR No. 34/01 dated 27.6.01 under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. The claimants are parents of the deceased and they claimed compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- under the provisions of the Act of 1987. 3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing reply to the claim petition wherein they have denied the averments made therein. However the factum of accident was not denied by the respondents.

4. The learned Railway Claims Tribunal, on the basis of pleading of both the parties, framed as many as 05 issues and proceeded to record the evidence of the parties.

5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing arguments of both the parties, decided the claim petition vide impugned award dated

01.06.2007, awarding an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellants, and at the same point of time, no interest has been awarded.

6. That the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned RCT erred in not awarding interest to the claimant, whereas the appellants are also entitled to get the interest over the compensation amount. [2025:RJ-JP:19561] (3 of 4) [CMA-1822/2011]

7. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. The limited controversy involved in the present appeal is qua non-awarding of interest pendente lite to the appellants.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr." (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 372, in relevant paragraph no.37, 38 and 39, has held as under: "37. Even if, the appellants may not be entitled to claim interest from the date of the accident, we are of the view that the claim to interest on the awarded sum has to be allowed from the date of the application till the date of recovery, since the appellant cannot be faulted for the delay of approximately 8 years in the making of the Award by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Had the Tribunal not delayed the matter for so long, the appellants would have been entitled to the beneficial interest of the amount awarded from a much earlier date and we see no reason why they should be deprived of such benefit. 38. As we have indicated earlier, payment of interest is basically compensation for being denied the use of the money during the period which the same could have been made available to the claimants. In our view, both the Tribunal, as also the High Court, were wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims. 39. We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order of the High Court [2025:RJ-JP:19561] (4 of 4) [CMA-1822/2011] dated 24.5.2007 affirming the order of the Trial Court and direct that the awarded sum will carry interest @6% simple interest per annum from the date of the application till the date of the Award and, thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of actual payment of the same. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent." Thus, in view of above settled legal proposition of law, it is evident that once claim petition is allowed, the claimants are entitled for interest as well.

11. Accordingly the present appeal succeeds and I hold that the appellants are entitled to get interest on the awarded sum @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization.

12. Consequently, I hereby direct the respondents to make payment of interest amount on the awarded sum @ 6 % per annum to the appellants from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation amount Rs.4,00,000/- in terms of the award.

13. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award dated 01.06.2007 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in O.A. No.II- 79/2001 titled as "Dinanath Nagpal & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr." is modified as indicated hereinabove .

14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J AMIT/45 Whether Reportable : Yes/No