Kumari Sanju Panda, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed by the Union of India represented through the General Manager, East Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, challenging the award dated 26-9-2005 patted by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No. 70 of 2004 whereby it awarded a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to the claimant-respondent with an interest of 3% from the date of filing of the application, failing winch (he interest will be payable @ of 5%.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The claimant-respondent filed O.A. No. 70 of 2004 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench claiming com pensation from the appellant on the ground that on 29-1-2003, the claimant after visiting her cousin sister's house returned from Khurda Road by Train No. 212 DN Puri-Sambalpur Passenger. The husband of her cousin sister came to Khurda Railway Station with the claimant and purchased a second class passenger ticket for the claimant. Thereafter she boarded a second class compartment. When the train was passing the south cabin of the Bhubaneswar Railway Station, the claimant came to the exit door of the coach to see her husband who was earlier informed to come to the station to receive her. While she was looking for her husband to give indication about her position, she fell down accidentally due to sudden jerk and imbalance as a result of which she came under the wheels of the train and her both legs below the knee were severed at the spot. After the incident, some public who had witnessed the incident raised a hue and cry. Her husband, who was waiting at the end of the platform towards south side, immediately went to the spot and carried the injured to the nearest hospital with the help of public, who were present at the spot. Accordingly, she was shifted to the Capital Hospital, Unit-VI, Bhubaneswar and the doctors amputated both her legs at the knee of ankle joints and her ticket was lost at the time of the accident. Due to the said accident as she lost her both legs, after her release from the hospital she filed the claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal.
3. Receiving notice from the Tribunal the appellant-Railway Authorities filed their written statement denying that the incident as alleged by the claimant had not taken place at Bhubaneswar Railway Station on 29-1-2003. The claimant was not a passenger in Train No. 212 DN Puri-Sambalpur Passenger and she was not injured in the train accident at the railway station because the accident did not come to the notice of either Guard/Driver of the train or the Station employees and no information in connection with the alleged incident was available either with the working guard and driver or with the on-duty Station Master, Bhubaneswar nor was it within the knowledge of or reported before the Railway Police or R.P.F. Personnel at the Bhubaneswar Railway Station. The documents attached to the claim application were no way connected to prove the untoward incident to have taken place at the Bhubaneswar Railway Station premises. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation under the pro vision of the Act and they have stated that the application was filed on 28 9-2004, more than one year seven months and twenty nine days after the alleged untoward incident and in any case, about eight months after the limitation period of one year prescribed under Section 16 of the Act had section, for which no sufficient cause had been shown by the claimant for condonation of each day's delay after 28-1-2004, the last date by which the claim became so barred. Under such facts and circumstances mentioned above, the appellant before the Tribunal asserted that the claim application was devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings, both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleas. The claimant filed medical certificate, Bed head tickets of Capital Hospital, copy of the letter written by Deputy Secretary to Government of Orissa to the claimant and acknowledgment of the letter by the Assistant Secretary (PG) of East Coast Railway. Besides the above documentary evidence, the claimant filed her affidavit as well as an affidavit of one Pranab Kumar Chhatoi, alleged to be an eye-witness to the incident, Sri Chhatoi in his affidavit stated that he was travelling in the last compartment of the said train and later when he was about to de train at the approaching platform, tie saw a lady falling down from his front compartment. This witness was cross-examined and in his cross examination, he stated that the alleged incident took place on the platform No. 2, which is contradictory to the statement of the claimant to the effect that, she fell down from the train near south cabin, which is located as a good distance from the platform.
5. The appellant in support of their case filed an affidavit of the Station Master of Bhubaneswar Railway Station and in his affidavit, he deposed that tie was the overall in-charge of the Station and supervises the work of all the departments and no such incident as alleged in the O.A. took place on 29-1-2003. During cross-examination, he stated that on 29-1-2003 he was on duty from 8-00 hrs to 16.00 hrs and had checked all diaries and there was no record of any incident as alleged in the O.A. No memo was also received from the train crew. He further stated in his cross-examination that in case any injury takes place, the same has to be informed to the Station Authority before shifting the injured to the hospital.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Railway Claims Tribunal, without appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties from its proper prospective, on an erroneous analysis of the facts, awarded the compensation to the claimant from the date of filing of the Original Application which is illegal and liable to be set aside. As the accident has not taken place and the Tribunal has not specified that sufficient cause shown was by the claimant in filing the claim application after the period of limitation and the documents filed by the claimant and the entry made in the Bed-head ticket shows that the incident took place in the last night, create a doubt about the claim application. Therefore, the claim of the claimant should have been disbelieved by the Railway Tribunal and her application for compensation should have been rejected. Apart from that, the award of interest on the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the application till payment is also not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent on the other hand submitted that the claimant is an illiterate rustic lady and she belongs to the labour class and she was under treatment after the accident took place. The incident took place on 29-1-2003. Thereafter she was admitted to the hospital at 6.40 a.m. which was the morning. Therefore, the doctor has rightly entered in the bed-head ticket that the injured sustained injury last night. The Tribunal also condoned the delay, taking into consideration the ignorance and status of the claimant as she belongs to labour class and is very poor. She went through medical treatment which is very expensive. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly held that the delay in filing the application should be viewed most sympathetically and the same should not be held against the claimant. In this regard reference made to the decision reported in 2001 ACJ 1036 (SC) : 2001 AIR SCW 5195 in the case of Gobinda Pathak v. Union of India.
8. This Court after verifying the record and hearing the counsel for both the parties finds that the accident took place on 29-1-2003 at Bhubaneswar Railway Station. Looking at the condition of the injured, her husband and the local people who were present at the spot, took her to the hospital for treatment as the condition of injured was serious and they could not inform about the accident at the Station. However, her two legs were amputated and she went through a long treatment. Her bed-head ticket clearly shows that she sustained injury in a train accident and was under treatment, which was corroborated with the claim of the claimant. Due to jerk of the train, the claimant fell down from the train and sustained the injury. The said fact is coming within the definition of 'untoward incident' as contained in Sections 123 and 124 of the Act which provided the disability of the Railway. The written statement also reveals that in case of injury it is mandatory to inform the Station Master regarding the accident. In the present case, nobody informed the Station Master about the accident. The Tribunal framed specific issue in that regard and taking into consideration the evidence adduced by both the parties and the acknowledgment by the Asst. Secretary (PG) of East Coast Railway that her application for fianancial assistance was being looked into and copy of the letter by the Deputy Secretary to Government of Orissa requesting the Railway Authority to furnish the time of the incident for consideration for grant of financial assistance and the certificate from the doctor who is an Orthopedic Specialist of Capital Hospital came to the conclusion that the accident took place on 29-1-2003. The bed-head ticket of the Capital Hospital issued on 9-4-2003 and all the documents showed that after falling down from the train the claimant became unconscious and thereafter she was shifted to the Capital Hospital. The Railway Authorities have not led any evidence regarding the actual time of arrival of the train on that date, but the scheduled time of arrival of the train at Bhubaneswar in July, 2005 is at 6.10 which clearly corroborates the claim of the claimant The passenger who was examined on behalf of the claimant also corroborated that the accident occurred between 6.30 a.m. to 7.00 a.m. and he stated that it took about 20 minutes to take the injured to the hospital. He did not inform any police or railway officer about this incident and the Tribunal has categorically recorded that there is nothing to disbelieve this witness who appeared to be confused about the first and last of the train as he was examined after one year and six months of the incident. The Tribunal after considering all the evidence awarded the amount which is just and reasonable. There is nothing to disbelieve in toto the claim of the claimant. The Apex Court in a decision reported in 2008 (2) TAC 777 (SC) : 2008 AIR SCW 4165 Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, held that the provisions for compensation in Railways Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. In deciding claim for compensation a liberal and wider interpretation should have to be taken and the interpretation shall not be narrow and technical one. The object of the Act is for the benefit of the persons for whom the Act was made and should be given a liberal and not literal and strict interpretation.
9. Then comes the question of award of interest by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation.
10. The provisions of Interest Act, 1978 are also clear that 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 a 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 foe proceedings.
11. Therefore, from the above provision of the Interest Act read with the definition of the 'Court' as defined in Section 2(a) of the Interest Act read with Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code it is clear that the Court can grant interest. As the Railway Tribunal is coming under the definition of 'Court', it can award interest on the compensation payable to the claimant. It is in the discretion of the Tribunal to award compensation with pendente lite and future interest.
12. Therefore, this Court confirms the award passed by the Railway Tribunal.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.