[2025:RJ-JP:24756] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4874/2011 1. Smt. Niranjan Singh S/o Shri Doongar Singh, R/o Village Nurpur, Post Guniyari, Ps Chiksana, District Bharatpur Rajasthan. 2. Smt. Gautami W/o Shri Niranjan Singh, R/o Village Nurpur, Post Guniyari, Ps Chiksana, District Bharatpur Rajasthan. ----Appellants/Claimants Versus Union Of India Through The General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raghav Sharma for Mr. Ajay Shukla For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 04/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment and award dated 28.08.2008 passed by the Member (Judicial), Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in Original Application No. OA-II-86/2001, whereby the claim application was partly allowed and an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants/appellants but no interest was awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.05.2001, the deceased Satpal was travelling from Chiksana to Narnaur in Train No. 207 (Agra Fort-Bodikui Passenger) with an alleged second-class general ticket. As the train approached Bharatpur Railway Station [2025:RJ-JP:24756] (2 of 7) [CMA-4874/2011] near km 50/08, Satpal allegedly fell from the moving train, sustaining fatal injuries resulting in his instantaneous death. The Assistant Station Master, Bharatpur, informed Udyog Nagar Police, Bharatpur, leading to the registration of FIR No. 5/2001 under Section 174 CrPC. The Government Medical Jurist, Bharatpur, conducted the postmortem. The claimants/appellants contend this was an untoward railway accident entitling them to compensation from the non-claimant/respondent Railways. The claimants/appellants, hence, filed a claim application seeking just compensation. 3. The claimants/appellants in their claim application sought compensation, asserting Satpal was a bona fide passenger who died in an untoward railway accident. They relied on documentary evidence including the FIR (Exhibit A-1), postmortem report (Exhibit A-2), family ration card, list from the Assistant Station Master, inspection report (Exhibit A-5), final police report (Exhibit A-6), and dead body delivery report (Exhibit A-7). 4. The non-claimant/respondent, in its written statement, contested the claim application, alleging the deceased travelled without a valid ticket, was not a bona fide passenger, did not die in an untoward incident, and that the claimants/appellants were not dependents of the deceased. Consequently, the non-claimant/respondent sought dismissal of the claim application. 5. Based on the pleadings, five issues were framed for consideration. The claimants/appellants examined two witnesses: Shri Niranjan Singh (PW-1) and Shri Satish Kumar (PW-2), both of whom deposed via affidavit affirming the deceased's ticket [2025:RJ-JP:24756] (3 of 7) [CMA-4874/2011] possession, travel, and fall from the train, and were cross- examined by the non-claimant/respondent. 6. The claimants/appellants exhibited seven documents: FIR No. 5/2001 (Ex. A-1), Postmortem Report (Ex. A-2), Memo from Station Master Bharatpur to Police (Ex. A-4), Inspection Report of dead body (Ex. A-5), Final Police Report (Ex. A-6), and Dead Body Delivery Report (Ex. A-7). 7. No evidence was led by the non-claimant/respondent. 8. The learned Tribunal after due consideration of the facts, submissions of the counsels, and the evidence so submitted, partly allowed the claim application vide impugned award dated 28.08.2008 and awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in favour of the claimants/appellants but no interest was awarded. 9. Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 28.08.2008, the claimants/appellants have preferred the present appeal. 10. The limited submission of the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants is that though the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim application and awarded compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, it without any justified reason, denied the payment of interest. He further submits that the controversy with regard to the award of interest stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohamadi & Ors. v. Union of India reported in 2011 (4) T.A.C. 873 (SC) as well as Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372. He further submits that the controversy regarding payment of interest on the compensation was also settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Union of India Vs. Smt. Shamim & Ors. reported in 2009 (3) RLW 1973 (Raj.). [2025:RJ-JP:24756] (4 of 7) [CMA-4874/2011] Therefore, the interest may be awarded and the impugned award may be modified. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent opposed the request and submitted that there are no provisions in the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 to award interest on the compensation. He submits that in view of the submissions, the order passed by the learned Tribunal below is perfectly just and proper and does not call for any interference. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, and also perused the case law cited by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant. 13. The limited controversy involved in the present appeal is qua non-awarding of interest pendente lite to the appellants. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. (Supra), in relevant paragraph no.23, 24, 25 and 26 has held as under: "23………. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:24756] (5 of 7) [CMA-4874/2011] see no reason why they should be deprived of such benefit. 24. 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. 25. We, therefore, allow the appeal and modify the order of the High Court 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. 26. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent….." 15. Subsequently, the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohamadi & Ors. (Supra) wherein, under paragraph 2 through 5, it was held as under: “2. This appeal raises a very limited issue as to the day from which interest would accrue on the amount of compensation under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Tribunal directed that the compensation amount would carry interest at the rate [2025:RJ-JP:24756] (6 of 7) [CMA-4874/2011] of 9 per cent per annum from 25.5.1995, i.e., the date of the application till its payment to the claimant. On appeal, the High Court modified the Tribunal's order and directed that interest would commence not from the date of the application but from the date of the judgment of the Tribunal, which was passed on 2.12.2002. 3. The counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi v. Union of India: 2009 ACJ 2444 (SC), under similar circumstances, this Court held that the interest would accrue on the compensation amount from the date of the claim application. Learned Counsel particularly relied upon paras 23 and 24 of the judgment. 4. We find that the point is well taken and it is supported by the decision of this Court in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi,: 2009 ACJ 2444 (SC). 5. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the Tribunal's order in regard to the accrual of the interest with effect from the date of the application.” 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. 16. Accordingly the present appeal succeeds and this Court holds that the appellants are entitled to receive interest on the awarded sum @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization. [2025:RJ-JP:24756] (7 of 7) [CMA-4874/2011] 17. Consequently, this Court hereby directs 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. 18. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award dated 28.08.2008 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in OA-II-86/2001 titled as "Shri Niranjan Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India Through The General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai" is modified as indicated herein above. 18. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /126