Allahabad High Court
SMT. GITA DEVIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court held that, given the facts, it is just to modify the award to release 50% of the compensation amount to the petitioner immediately.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Gita Devi, filed a writ petition challenging the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal's order that released only 25% (₹2,00,000) of the ₹8,00,000 compensation awarded for the death of her son in a railway accident on 15 September 2019. She argued that the partial release was inequitable, especially after a six‑year delay in obtaining the award. The respondents, representing the Railways, contended that retaining 90% of the award in a fixed deposit would benefit the petitioner through accrued interest. The High Court examined the principle that part of the compensation may be released immediately while the balance is invested, but emphasized that discretion must be guided by the specific circumstances of each case. Finding that the petitioner had already endured a long wait and that the awarded sum was modest, the Court modified the award to release 50% (₹4,00,000) with interest within four weeks, while the remainder would be kept in a term deposit for three years. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the partial release of 25% of the compensation award is just and equitable in the circumstances.
- Whether the High Court can modify the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal's order to increase the immediate release of compensation.
- Whether the general principle of retaining a portion of compensation in a fixed deposit applies mandatorily without considering individual facts.
Subjects
- Railway Accident Claims Tribunal
- compensation
- partial release
- fixed deposit
- writ petition
- High Court of Allahabad
- modification of award
- interest
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10034 of 2026
Smt. Gita Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shambhavi Nandan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Sunil Sharma
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The solitary grievance of the petitioners is that only ₹ 2,00,000/- (25%) of the
amount has been directed to be released in favour of the
claimant/petitioner by the impugned award of the Railway Accident
Claims Tribunal dated 5.2.2026 is inequitable, unjust and grossly
inadequate. It defeats the purpose of award of compensation for death
caused to son of petitioner in a railway accident.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 15.9.2019,
Vishal Kumar, son of petitioner suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. Arising
therefrom, petitioner instituted a claim petition on 15.9.2019 which has been decided
on 5.2.2026, almost more than six years after the occurrence of the accident. Even
then, by that award, the Tribunal has awarded ₹ 8,00,000/- to the claimant.
4. The Tribunal has provided for release of ₹ 2,00,000/- to the petitioners and
the balance is to be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years.
5. Petitioners are aggrieved by the wholly inadequate amount directed to be released,
in a mechanical manner. Looking at the total compensation awarded, a sum of ₹
2,00,000/-would be released at present though the petitioners claim that
compensation of ₹ 8,00,000/- has been awarded. At present, the
petitioners pray for release of at least 50% of the awarded amount to the
petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Railways would submit that the order
restraining release of ninety per cent of the award is only in the interest of the
petitioners as they are likely to receive a higher amount after three years upon accrual
of interest.
WRIC No. 10034 of 2026
2
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while
there can be no dispute to the principle universally applied in such cases where part
compensation amount is released at the time of the award being made and the balance
amount is invested for the benefit of the claimant, at the same time, it cannot be
applied as a rule of thumb in all cases. In that, individual facts and circumstances must
dictate the exercise of discretion, in such matters. The claimant/petitioner No.1 who
lost her son, on who certain dependency may also be claimed cannot be forced to
litigate for years to earn an award of compensation and then be made to wait for
further years to receive that compensation owing to exercise of discretion by the
Court, ostensibly in the interest of such claimant.
8. Therefore, the above principle invoked by the learned Tribunal must be blended
with practicality so as to release a reasonable amount, keeping in mind the overall
circumstances of the case.
9. In the present case, petitioner, who is mother of the deceased has waited for more
than six years from the occurrence of death for award of the compensation. The
compensation awarded at the moment is also not excessive but a modest sum of ₹
8,00,000/-.
10. Accordingly, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners for release of
at least 50% of the awarded amount to the petitioner is found to be wholly just and
proper. Accordingly, the award dated 17.2.2026 shall stand modified.
11. Let 50% of the awarded amount i.e. ₹ 4,00,000/- along with proportionate
interest be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the
date of production of certified copy of this order. The balance amount shall be
invested and retained in highest bearing term deposit in a nationalized bank for a
period of three years.
12. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of.
13. It is made clear that any amount paid in compliance of the award may be adjusted
against the amount to be released in pursuance of this order.
14. Also, this order has been passed independent of the right of the petitioner to claim
enhancement, if advised.
March 18, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…