High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 10 RAJ CK 0099

Union of India vs Smt. Sunita and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 21 October 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bela M. Trivedi, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3570 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 342 words

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.5.2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') in case No. OA-II-103/2005, whereby the claim petition of the claimants was allowed and claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the award, on account of the death of Sumer Singh. It appears that the respondents-claimants who happened to be the wife, children and parents respectively of late Sumer Singh, had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal wherein amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was claimed on the ground that late Sumer Singh had died on 23.6.2005 on account of an accident which had taken place on 29.5.2005 when he was traveling in the train being No. 3004 Down from Bharatpur to Bandikui with a free pass. According to the respondents-claimants, said Sumer Singh had fallen down from the running train on account of negligence on the part of the appellant.

2.

The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, passed the impugned order which is challenged in this appeal.

3.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal should not have awarded the interest from the date of filing of claim petition and to that extent, the award is bad. The court does not find any substance in the said submission. The order awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition, being discretionary in nature, the court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. It further appears that though the order under challenge is dated 22.5.2008, the present appeal has not been persuaded for long five years and, therefore, the amount of award must have been disbursed to the respondents-claimants and no useful purpose would be served in entertaining the present appeal at this stage. In that view of the matter, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is, hereby dismissed.