FMA No. 1606 of 2013. Case: Usha Shaw Vs Union of India, [Alongwith FMA No. 1924 of 2013]. High Court of Calcutta (India)
| Case Number | FMA No. 1606 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Mittal and Mr. Narin Mittal, Advocates and For Respondents: Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate |
| Judges | Ashim Kumar Banerjee and Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 34; Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Section 16 |
| Judgement Date | July 04, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Calcutta (India) |
Judgment:
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.
-
These two appeals would relate to the issue of interest pendente lite and interest on judgment. The learned Tribunal declined to award any interest pendente lite on the ground, the parties were dragging the issue. The Tribunal did not assign any reason why it did not award any interest on judgment. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act did not provide any interest being paid for a delayed compensation. Section 16 would permit accidental claims to be lodged either by the victim himself for his injury or through his next to kin in case of death. In both these cases the claimants made a claim for compensation in a death case. Tribunal allowed the same. The Railway paid it that the claimants accepted. After receipt of compensation both of them approached us by preferring appeal on interest component that we heard on the above mentioned dates. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants/appellants would contend, the Tribunal should have awarded interest. The Tribunal made adverse remarks as against the parties without giving an opportunity to confront such allegation. In any event, such observation was restricted to interest pendente lite only.
-
Per contra, Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Railway would contend, interest was not a matter of right. The claimants would have to prove that they were diligent enough to pursue their claim, otherwise the Tribunal was free to reject it as had been done in the present case.
-
The parties cited the following decisions:
-
Mainura Bibi Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2009 3 WBL 413;
-
Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2010 1 T.A.C. 420;
-
Indian Council For Envior-Legal Action Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2011 8 SCC 163;
-
Secretary/General Manager, Chennai, Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. S. Kamalaveni Sundaram reported in 2011 1 SCC 790.
-
We have considered the rival contentions, the decision of the Tribunal as also the Lower Court records that we brought through the department. Mr. Mittal would inform us, as per the practice of the Tribunal three copies were filed, one would be directly sent to the Railway by the Tribunal in addition to the claimants' obligation to serve the copy upon the Railway. In the instant case (Usha Shaw), the accident occurred on August 30, 2009. The claimant filed application on September 15, 2009. The Tribunal sent the summons...
To continue reading
Request your trial