# Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Pal

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1104
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-09-20
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 6 of 2009
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, Vishnu Chandra Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-v-ashok-kumar-pal-42335
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Railway Claim Tribunal Act1987-Section
23-Appeal-Railway
Act
1989-Section
124-Appeal against award of Railway
Tribunal-on ground as deceased not
bona fide passenger-claim itself not
maintainable-from appraisal of evidence
Tribunal
recorded
finding
of
fact
regarding bona fide passenger-claimant
being natural heirs of and dependent of
deceased-petition
maintainable-having
liability nature of 'no fault'.

Held: Para-18
In view of above, it is established from
the evidence adduced by the claimant
that
deceased
was
travelling
as
a
bonafide passenger of Train No. 2 E.K
(EMU) passenger train in second class on
13th February, 2001 when 'untoward
incident' was occurred at Pata railway
station and as such the son of deceased
being
dependent
and
only
legal
heir/legal representative is entitled to
claim compensation for the aforesaid
'untoward
incident'
from
railway
administration.
3 All] Union of India V. Ashok Kumar Pal
1105
Code
of
Civil
Procedure-Section
34
readwith Section 3 of Interest Act 1978-
Award of interest with retrospective
effect-in absence of specific provision in
Act-general principle of C.P.C. As well as
interest Act-interest can be awardedcompounding interest after expiry of 60
days from the publication of award-shall
be payable-award impugned modified
accordingly.

Held: Para-30

Having
considered
the
respective
submission for the learned counsel for
the parties, we are of the view that
award
of
penal
interest
from
retrospective date would be illegal and,
therefore, would not be sustainable.
However, the interest awarded as penal
interest by the tribunal would be payable
after 60 days from the date of award, if
the appellant had committed default in
making the deposit of the amount of
awarded
compensation
before
the
tribunal or before this Court within 60
days from the date of award passed by
the Tribunal.
Case Law discussed:
(2008) 9 SCC 527; AIR 1987 SC 1086; 2009
(2) T.A.C. 644 (All); 2009 (7) SCC 372; (1999)
3 SCC 257; 2004 (2) SCC Page 370; 2009 (7)
SCC 372

## Text

1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
work or to make inspection of District
Forum lying within the Sessions Division
assigned to him has been framed by its
framers keeping in mind the High Courts'
general power of superintendence over all
the courts and tribunals given to it under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

65. The aforesaid rule also thus
lends support to the view that the Court of
Consumer Forum and Commissions lying
within the territorial jurisdiction of a High
Court are subordinate to the High Court
so
far
as
its
general
power
of
superintendence over them as provided
under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is concerned.

66. In view of the above we are of
the firm view that a High Court has the
power of superintendence also over the
District
Consumer
Forums
and
Commissions lying within its territorial
jurisdiction and that being so such District
Consumer Forums and Commissions
established
under
the
Consumer
Protection Act are also covered within the
ambit and scope of "courts subordinate to
the High Court" in the context of Section
10 of the Contempts of Courts Act 1971.

67. The second question involved
for our consideration is also thus decided
in affirmative.

68. In view of the above discussion
we find that the preliminary objection
raised by the contemnor about non
maintainability of the present contempt
proceeding has no force and as such is
rejected.

69. Let the case be listed in the next
cause list for further orders.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 6 of 2009

Union of India through the General
Manager,
Northern
Railway,
Baroda
House, New Delhi (Respondent in O.A.
Before R.C.T.).

 ...Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Pal
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.P.Singh

Railway Claim Tribunal Act1987-Section
23-Appeal-Railway
Act
1989-Section
124-Appeal against award of Railway
Tribunal-on ground as deceased not
bona fide passenger-claim itself not
maintainable-from appraisal of evidence
Tribunal
recorded
finding
of
fact
regarding bona fide passenger-claimant
being natural heirs of and dependent of
deceased-petition
maintainable-having
liability nature of 'no fault'.

Held: Para-18
In view of above, it is established from
the evidence adduced by the claimant
that
deceased
was
travelling
as
a
bonafide passenger of Train No. 2 E.K
(EMU) passenger train in second class on
13th February, 2001 when 'untoward
incident' was occurred at Pata railway
station and as such the son of deceased
being
dependent
and
only
legal
heir/legal representative is entitled to
claim compensation for the aforesaid
'untoward
incident'
from
railway
administration.
3 All] Union of India V. Ashok Kumar Pal
1105
Code
of
Civil
Procedure-Section
34
readwith Section 3 of Interest Act 1978-
Award of interest with retrospective
effect-in absence of specific provision in
Act-general principle of C.P.C. As well as
interest Act-interest can be awardedcompounding interest after expiry of 60
days from the publication of award-shall
be payable-award impugned modified
accordingly.

Held: Para-30

Having
considered
the
respective
submission for the learned counsel for
the parties, we are of the view that
award
of
penal
interest
from
retrospective date would be illegal and,
therefore, would not be sustainable.
However, the interest awarded as penal
interest by the tribunal would be payable
after 60 days from the date of award, if
the appellant had committed default in
making the deposit of the amount of
awarded
compensation
before
the
tribunal or before this Court within 60
days from the date of award passed by
the Tribunal.
Case Law discussed:
(2008) 9 SCC 527; AIR 1987 SC 1086; 2009
(2) T.A.C. 644 (All); 2009 (7) SCC 372; (1999)
3 SCC 257; 2004 (2) SCC Page 370; 2009 (7)
SCC 372

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.)

1. This appeal under Section 23 of
the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has
been preferred against an award dated
29.09.2008 in Claim Case No. O.A.
0300199 decided by Railway Claims
Tribunal, Lucknow (in short 'R.C.T'),
wherein an award of Rs. 4 lac was passed
with pendente lite and future simple
interest @ 6% per annum on account of
death of Ram Singh Pal in an accident
occurred on 13th February, 2001. It was
further directed that in default of payment
of amount under award including interest
and costs within 60 days the simple interest
would be payable at rate of 7%.

2. The facts in brief are that one Ram
Singh Pal was travelling by train No. 2E.K (EMU) passenger train in second class
with ticket No. 08347 from Bharthana to
Phahpund
railway
station
on
13th
February, 2001. When train was at Pata
railway station, Ram Singh Pal fell down
from the train and died in the train
accident. Claim petition was preferred by
his
son
Ashok
Kumar
Pal,
respondent/claimant, the only legal heir of
deceased Ram Singh Pal.

3. The petition has been contested by
the appellant respondent challenging the
fact that deceased was not a bonafide
passenger. The deceased fell down on his
own negligence and as such this accident is
not covered within the definition of
'untoward incident' as defined in Section
123 read with Section 124 A of Railway
Act, 1989 (for short the 'Act').

On the basis of the pleading of the
parties the tribunal framed 4 issues:-

i. Whether the deceased was a
bonafide passenger?

ii. Whether the accident in question
comes within the ambit of 'untoward
incident'?

iii. Whether the appellant is only
dependent of the deceased?

iv. To what relief?

4. In support of claim petitioner
Ashok Kumar Pal examined himself and
also examined one Shushila Devi who was
also travelling with deceased in the same
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
compartment and was relative of the
deceased, thus she is an eyewitness.

5. After death of Ram Singh Pal, an
inquest was prepared of deceased Ram
Singh Pal, wherein it was mentioned that
railway ticket having ticket No. 08347 was
found. Ration card was also brought on
record to show that petitioner Ashok
Kumar Pal is only legal heir.

6.

From
the
side
of
appellant/opposite party Sri Alok Kumar,
Inspector Commercial has been produced
as witness.

7. After hearing the parties, the
tribunal held that the deceased was
travelling in the train with the valid ticket
and the accident was occurred due to jerk
when train leave the station as such the
incident covered under the definition of
untoward incident. The claimant being
only dependent of the deceased being son
is entitled to scheduled compensation of
Rs. 4,00,000/- as provided under Railway
Accidents
and
Untoward
Incidents
(Compensation) Rules of 1990 (for short
'Rules').

8. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

9. The counsel for the appellant, Sri
Anil Srivastava assailed the award on the
following grounds.

I. The deceased was not a bonafide
passenger.

II .The alleged accident does not
come within the ambit of untoward
incident.

III. There is no provision either in the
Railway Act or under RCT Act or Rules
made thereunder for award of interest.
Moreover, the Tribunal was also not
having any jurisdiction to award panel
interest from retrospective date.

Pint No.I and II

10. To decide question no.1 and 2
certain statutory provision required to be
considered which are quoted here in
below:-

Section 2(29) of the Railways Act
defines 'passenger' to mean a person
travelling with a valid pass or ticket.

Section 123(c) "untoward incident"
means-

i. the commission of a terrorist act
within the meaning of sub- section(1)of
Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of
1987); or

ii. the making of a violent attack or
the commission of robbery or dacoity; or

iii. the indulging in rioting, shoot-out
or arson,

by any person in or on any train
carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall,
cloak room or reservation or booking
office or on any platform or in any other
place within the precincts of a railway
station; or

2. the accidental falling of any
passenger from a train carrying passengers.

Section 124-A of the Railways Act
with which we are concerned states :
3 All] Union of India V. Ashok Kumar Pal
1107

" 124-A. Compensation on account of
untoward incident. - When in the course of
working a railway an untoward incident
occurs, then whether or not there has been
any wrongful act, neglect or default on the
part of the railway administration such as
would entitle a passenger who has been
injured or the dependant of a passenger
who has been killed to maintain an action
and recover damages in respect thereof, the
railway
administration
shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law, be liable to pay compensation to
such extent as may be prescribed and to
that extent only for loss occasioned by the
death of, or injury to, a passenger as a
result of such untoward incident:

Provided that no compensation shall
be payable under this section by the
railway administration if the passenger dies
or suffers injury due to -

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by
him;

(b) self-inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act committed by him in a
state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or
medical or surgical treatment unless such
treatment becomes necessary due to injury
caused by the said untoward incident.

Explanation - For the purposes of this
section, "passenger" includes -

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a
valid ticket for travelling by a train
carrying passengers, on any date or a valid
platform ticket and becomes a victim of an
untoward incident."

11. Now the marshaling of fact is
required to be made in the light of the legal
provisions mentioned above.

12. Deceased of this case Sri Ram
Singh Pal fell down from the train and
died. An inquest has been performed upon
the corpus of deceased Ram Singh Pal. The
railway ticket bearing No. 08347 of second
class from Bharthana to Phahpund railway
station of dated 13th February, 2001 was
found from the body of the deceased.
These facts are not disputed by appellant's
counsel. In view of these admitted fact, the
deceased Ram Singh Pal was having a
valid ticket to travel in the aforesaid train
at the time of accident. Therefore, the
deceased was 'passenger' within the
meaning of Section 2(29) of the Act and
explanation of Section 124(A) of the Act,
therefore. It is also established that Ram
Singh Pal was bonafide passenger of the
train, fell down from the train and
succumbed to the injuries, therefore, the
accident will fall within the ambit of
'untoward incident' as defined in Section
123 (c) of the Act.

13. Whether on account of this
'untoward incident' the dependent of
deceased
would
be
entitled
for
compensation? This question ought to be
decided in the light of provision contained
in Section 124 (A) of the Act. Section 124
(A) is in two parts the main body of section
124 (A) provides that when an 'untoward
incident' occurred the question whether or
not there has been any wrongful act,
neglect or default on the part of railway
administration, the passenger on account of
sustaining injuries or in case of death the
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
dependents of passenger would claim
compensation
from
the
railway
administration. It shows that this part of
Section 124 (A) is based on principle of no
fault liability of the bonafide passenger.

14. The second part of Section
124(A) contains a proviso which provides
incidents not covered in the main body of
Section 124(A). These exceptions carved
out in proviso to Section 124(A) provide
the grounds on which the railway
administration can oppose and defeat the
claim for compensation under Section
124(A).
Therefore,
the
railway
administration has to plead and prove the
exceptions enumerated in proviso to
Section 124 (A) to defeat the claim of
compensation. Thus it is clear from the
scheme of Section 124-A that no fault
liability relates to bonafide passenger but
strict liability relates to the railway
administration.

15.

In
Union
of
India
v.
Prabhakaran Vijay Kumar and Ors.
(2008) 9 SCC 527, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, while considering the provisions of
Sections 123(c)(2), 124-A and 127 of the
Railways Act, 1989 and the expression
"untoward
incident"
held
that
the
provisions of Section 124-A is in the
nature of a no-fault liability in case of
railways
accidents
and
a
bonafide
passenger travelling on a train would be
entitled to compensation for such untoward
incident irrespective of who was at fault
therefor.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Prabhakaran
Vijaya
Kumar
case(Supra) has discussed in detail the
provisions
regarding
award
of
compensation under Section 124-A of the
Act. It was held therein that if it is proved
that person received injuries in the train
accident or in case of death, the deceased,
is a bonafide passenger he or dependent
legal heirs of deceased need not plead any
wrongful act, negligent or default on the
part of railway administration. However if
railway administration wants to defeat the
claim
of
compensation
the
railway
administration has to prove any one of the
exception mentioned in the proviso to
Section 124 (A). This means that to defeat
the claim of compensation the railway
administration must plead and prove the
exception mentioned in proviso to section
124(A). Thus, after carving out an
exception of English law laid down in
Rylands v. Flether in the light of
Constitution Bench decision in the case of
M.C.Mehta and others vs. Union Of India
and others, AIR 1987 SC 1086 held that
the provisions contained in section 124-A
of the Act is an example of blending of
principles of no fault liability and strict
liability.

17. The Division Bench of this Court
in Smt. Akhtari V. Union of India
through
C.M.,
NER,
Gorakhpur
reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C. 644 (All).
had discussed in detail the provision
contained in the Act and explained the
words used 'accident' and 'untoward
incident' in the light of different authorities
of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High
Courts also. The word 'bonafide passenger'
was also discussed in detail and the
application of the same was extended
keeping in view the legislative intend
behind introducing the provision of
compensation in the matter of 'untoward
incident'. It was observed that it is a
welfare legislation.

18. In view of above, it is established
from the evidence adduced by the claimant
3 All] Union of India V. Ashok Kumar Pal
1109
that deceased was travelling as a bonafide
passenger of Train No. 2 E.K (EMU)
passenger train in second class on 13th
February, 2001 when 'untoward incident'
was occurred at Pata railway station and as
such the son of deceased being dependent
and only legal heir/legal representative is
entitled to claim compensation for the
aforesaid 'untoward incident' from railway
administration.

19. No evidence has brought on
record from the side of the railway
administration by which any of the
exception given in the proviso to Section
124 (A) could be established, therefore, the
railway administration has failed to defeat
the claim filed on account of 'untoward
incident' by respondent/claimant.

20. Therefore we do not find any
illegality or perversity in awarding the
scheduled
compensation
to
the
Respondent/Claimant

21. The point No. I and II are
accordingly decided.

Point No. III

22. It is true that there is no provision
in the Railways Act or RCT Act or Rules
made
thereunder
to
award
interest.
However, it is well settled that where there
is no provision to award interest in the
matters relating to money decree the
interest may be awarded keeping in view
the provisions contained under Interest Act
and Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code.
The statutory provisions contained in
Section 3 of the Interest Act and Section
34 of Civil Procedure Code are reproduce
hereinbelow:-

Provisions of the Interest Act, 1978
and the Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 3 of the Interest Act 1978,
which confers power on the Court to allow
interest reads as follows :

"3. Power of Court to allow interest.-
(1) In any proceedings for the recovery of
any debt or damages or in any proceedings
in which a claim for interest in respect of
any debt or damages already paid is made,
the Court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest
to the person entitled to the debt or
damages or to the person making such
claim, as the case may be, at a rate not
exceeding the current rate of interest, for
the whole or part of the following period,
that is to say,-

(a) If the proceedings relate to a debt
payable by virtue of written instrument at a
certain time, then, from the date when the
debt is payable to the date of institution of
the proceedings;

(b) If, the proceedings do not relate to
any such debt, then, from the date
mentioned in this regard in a written notice
given by the person entitled or the person
making the claim to the person liable that
interest will be claimed, to the date of
institution of the proceedings :

Provided that where the amount of the
debt or damages has been repaid before the
institution of the proceedings interest shall
not be allowed under this section for the
period after such repayment.

(2) Where, in any such proceedings as
are mentioned in sub-section (1),-

(a) Judgment, order or award is given
for a sum which, apart from interest on
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
damages, exceeds four thousand rupees,
and

(b) The sum represents or includes
damages in respect of personal injuries to
the plaintiff or any other person, or in
respect of a person's death,

then, the power conferred by that subsection shall be exercised so as to include
in that sum interest on those damages or on
such part of them as the Court considers
appropriate for the whole or part of the
period from the date mentioned in the
notice to the date of institution of the
proceedings, unless the Court is satisfied
that there are special reasons why no
interest should be given in respect of those
damages.

(3) Nothing in this section,

(a) shall apply in relation to -

(I) Any debt or damages upon which
interest is payable as of right by virtue of
any agreement; or

(ii) Any debt or damages upon which
payment of interest is barred, by virtue of
all express agreement;

(b) Shall affect -

(i) The compensation recoverable for
the dishonour of a bill of exchange,
promissory note or cheque, as defined in
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26
of 1881); or

(ii) The provisions of rule 2 of Order
11 of the First Schedule to the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908);

(c) Shall empower the Court to award
interest upon interest."

Civil Procedure Code; Section "34.
Interest.- (1) Where and in so far as a
decree is for the payment of money, the
Court may, in the decree, order interest at
such rate as the Court deems reasonable to
be paid on the principal sum adjudged,
from the date of the suit to the date of the
decree, in addition to any interest adjudged
on such principal sum for any period prior
to the institution of the suit, (with further
interest at such rate not exceeding six per
cent, per annum as the Court deems
reasonable on such principal sum from) the
date of the decree to the date of payment,
or to such earlier date as the Court thinks
fit :

Provided that where the liability in
relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen
out of a commercial transaction, the rate of
such further interest may exceed six per
cent, per annum, but shall not exceed the
contractual rate of interest or where there is
no contractual rate, the rate at which
moneys
are
lent
or
advanced
by
nationalised
banks
in
relation
to
commercial transactions.

Explanation I. - In this sub-section,
"nationalised bank" means a corresponding
new bank as defined in the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act 1970 (5 of 1970).

Explanation II. - For the purposes of
this section, a transaction is a commercial
transaction, if it is connected with the
industry, trade or business of the party
incurring the liability-)

(2) Where such a decree is silent with
respect to the payment of further interest
3 All] Union of India V. Ashok Kumar Pal
1111
(on such principal sum) from the date of
the decree to the date of payment or other
earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to
have refused such interest, and a separate
suit therefore shall not lie."

23. So far as the award of interest is
concerned the question is not res integra.
It is no doubt true that there is no provision
either in the act or in Rules made under
Act to award interest in the case covered
under Section 124 and 124(A) of the
Railway Act, but it is clear that the Court,
while making a decree for payment of
money is entitled to award interest at the
current bank rate or contractual rate as it
deems reasonable to be paid on the
principal sum adjudged to be payable
and/or awarded, from the date of claim or
from the date of the order or decree for
recovery of the outstanding dues. There is
also hardly any room for doubt that interest
may be claimed on any amount decreed or
awarded for the period during which the
money was due and yet remained unpaid to
the claimants.

24. In Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi &
Ors. Versus Union of India & Another
reported in 2009 (7) SCC 372, after
considering
the
statutory
provisions
contained in Interest Act and Section 34 of
Civil Procedure Code and relying upon
Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd
Vs. State of J & K,(1992) 4 SCC 21 and
Jagdish Rai and others Vs. Union Of
India , (1999) 3 SCC 257 held that interest
may be awarded in the matter of awarding
compensation under Section 124-A of the
Act. The relevant paragraphs No.36,37,38
and 39 are quoted here in below;

"36. In the instant case, the claim for
compensation accrued on 13th November,
1998, when Kunhi Moosa, the husband of
the Appellant No. 1, died on account of
being thrown out of the moving train. The
claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ernakulam, (O. A. No. 68/1999) was filed
immediately thereafter in 1999. There was
no
delay
on
the
part
of
the
claimants/appellants in making the claim,
which was ultimately granted for the
maximum amount of Rs. 4 lakhs on 26th
March, 2007.

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
dated 24-5-2007 affirming the order of the
Trial Court and direct that the awarded
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
sum will carry interest @6% simple
interest per annum from the date of the
application till date of the Award and,
thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till
the date of actual payment of the same. "

25. Now the second fold of the
argument of appellant's counsel relates to
awarding of penal interest.

26. The counsel for the appellant
after relying upon a judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in 2004 (2) SCC
Page 370 (National Insurance Co. Ltd
versus Keshav Bahadur & Ors.) submits
that in this case their lordships have held
that
award
of
penal
interest
from
retrospective date amounts to penalty for
which
the
courts/tribunal
have
no
authority. The relevant paragraph 13 of the
aforesaid report is quoted herein below:-

"13. Though Section 110-CC of the
Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the
new Act) confers a discretion on the
Tribunal to award interest, the same is
meant to be exercised in cases where the
claimant can claim the same as a matter of
right. In the above background, it is to be
judged whether a stipulation for higher
rate of interest in case of default can be
imposed by the Tribunal. Once the
discretion has been exercised by the
Tribunal to award simple interest on the
amount of compensation to be awarded at
a particular rate and from a particular
date, there is no scope for retrospective
enhancement for default in payment of
compensation. No express or implied
power in this regard can be culled out
from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section
171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the
award for retrospective enhancement of
interest for default in payment of the
compensation
together
with
interest
payable thereon virtually amounts to
imposition of penalty which is not
statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is,
therefore directed that the rate of interest
as awarded by the High Court shall alone
be applicable till payment, without the
stipulation for higher rate of interest being
enforced, in the manner directed by the
Tribunal."

27. Learned counsel for the claimant
relied upon para 39 of judgment in
Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. Versus
Union of India & Another reported in
2009 (7) SCC 372 and submitted that there
is no impediment in awarding the
prospective penal interest in case of
making default of payment after stipulated
period. Para 39 is reproduced again;

"39. 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 date of the Award and,
thereafter, at the rate of 9% per annum till
the date of actual payment of the same."

28. We find force in the arguments of
the counsel for respondent.

29. The Tribunal has awarded the
statutory
scheduled
amount
of
Rs.
4,00,000/- as provided in scheduled made
under Rule 3 of the Rules and as such the
RCT has rightly decided the amount of
compensation payable to the claimant.

30. Having considered the respective
submission for the learned counsel for the
parties, we are of the view that award of
penal interest from retrospective date
would be illegal and, therefore, would not
3 All] B.P. Singh & others V. Ramesh Chandra Rai and another
1113
be sustainable. However, the interest
awarded as penal interest by the tribunal
would be payable after 60 days from the
date of award, if the appellant had
committed default in making the deposit of
the amount of awarded compensation
before the tribunal or before this Court
within 60 days from the date of award
passed by the Tribunal.

31. The point No. III is accordingly
decided.

32. In view of above, the appeal
deserve to be allowed in part. The order
required to be modified.

33. No other ground has been raised
or pressed by the appellant.

34. The appeal is partly allowed.
The award of penal interest at the rate of
7% per annum in place of pendente lite and
future simple interest @ 6% per annum in
case
of
default
of
payment
of
compensation within 60 days from the date
of award is set aside. However, if entire
amount under award has not been
deposited within 60 days, the rate of
interest on unpaid amount would be at the
rate of 7% prospectively payable after two
months from the date of award.

35. The amount deposited by the
appellant in this Court or before the
Tribunal shall be adjusted against the
amount if due against the appellant. The
remaining amount, if any, shall be
deposited by the appellant before the
Tribunal. The amount deposited before this
Court, if any, be remitted to the Tribunal
forthwith but not later than a month. The
Tribunal after deposit of the amount shall
disburse the same expeditiously to the
claimant say within six weeks.

36. Registrar of this Court shall take
fallow up action.

37. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAEED-UZ-ZAMAN SIDDIQI, J.

Civil Revision No. - 96 of 2012

B.P. Singh & Others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Rai and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jaspreet Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rakesh Pandey
Sri S.L. Dubey

Code of Civil Procedure-Section 115Revision-order rejecting Application to
return the plaint-plea of bar of Civil Suit
under
section
111
of
Cooperative
Societies Act-not available in a Suit of
permanent Injunction-Trail Court rightly
exercised its desecration by rejecting the
application as dispute not related to
dispute of membership of society-plea of
bar of Civil Jurisdiction not available.

Held: Para 8

As mentioned earlier, the suit is for
permanent
injunction
by
which
the
plaintiff has prayed that a decree for
permanent injunction be granted and
defendant nos. 2 to 5 be restrained from
interfering in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of plaintiff over the disputed
plot or from entering into the premises
to
the
said
plot,
in
any
manner
whatsoever. Ouster of jurisdiction is not