RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) IT is an appeal filed by the claimant challenging the award of Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'Tribunal') only on the ground that while determining the amount of compensation, the Tribunal has erred in law in not awarding interest on the compensation from the date of filing the petition. Alongwith the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 521 days in filing the appeal has also been filed.
(2.) NOTICE in the application was issued on 7.9.2010. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 appeared on 8.10.2010 and sought time for filing reply to the application. Two further adjournments were also sought but the reply has not been filed. Apparently, the contesting respondent No.1 does not want to contest the claim made by the applicant-appellant in application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The applicant-appellant in the present case is widow of the deceased whereas the other claimants are his parents, sons and daughters. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 521 days in filing the appeal is condoned. As far as claim of the appellant on merits is concerned, placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in FAO No.690 of 2009 titled Sikander Singh v. Union of India, decided on 23.9.2009, learned counsel submitted that the claimants are entitled to interest on the awarded amount of compensation from the date the claim petition was filed whereas the Tribunal in the present case has awarded the interest only from the date of order. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 could not dispute that in the aforesaid judgment this Court had opined that the claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the petition. For the reasons stated in Sikander Singh's case (supra), the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
(3.) THE impugned order is modified to the extent mentioned above. THE appeal is disposed of.;