Allahabad High Court
MANTU SAH AND 5 OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court modified the award, directing the release of 50% of the compensation immediately and ordering the balance to be invested for three years.
Summary
The petitioners sought a larger immediate release of compensation awarded by the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal for the death of Shanti Devi, the wife of petitioner No.1, in a railway accident on 20 June 2023. The Tribunal had ordered only ₹80,000 to be released immediately, with the balance of the ₹8,00,000 award to be kept in a fixed deposit for three years. The petitioners argued that this arrangement was inequitable and that at least 50% of the award should be released promptly. The Court examined the principle of partial release of compensation and held that discretion must be exercised based on the facts, noting the hardship to the dependents of the deceased. It modified the award, directing the release of 50% of the compensation (₹4,00,000) with proportionate interest within four weeks, while the remainder is to be invested in a high‑yield term deposit. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Tribunal's order to release only ₹80,000 of the awarded compensation is just and adequate.
- Whether the Court can modify the partial release provision to allow a larger immediate disbursement.
- Whether the discretion to retain a portion of compensation in a fixed deposit should be exercised in light of the claimants' circumstances.
Subjects
- railway accident
- compensation
- Railway Accident Claims Tribunal
- partial release
- fixed deposit
- writ petition
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10179 of 2026
Mantu Sah And 5 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.
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 ₹ 80,000/- of the amount
has been directed to be released in favour of the claimants/petitioners by
the impugned award of the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal dated
3.6.2025 is inequitable, unjust and grossly inadequate. It defeats the
purpose of award of compensation for death caused to wife of petitioner
no.1 in a railway accident.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 20.6.2023,
Shanti Devi, wife of petitioner No.1 suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot in the
night of 19-20/06/2026. Arising therefrom, petitioners instituted a claim petition on
12.10.2023 which has been decided on 3.6.2025, almost two years after the occurrence
of the accident. Even then, by that award, the Tribunal has awarded ₹ 8,00,000/- to
the claimants (₹ 1,75,000/- to petitioner No.1 & ₹ 1,25,000/- (each) to
petitioner Nos.2 to 6, sons and daughters of the deceased).
4. The Tribunal has provided for release of ₹ 80,000/- 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 ₹
80,000/-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
WRIC No. 10179 of 2026
2
of interest.
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 wife, 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 No.1 is husband and petitioners no.2 to 6 are sons and
daughters of the deceased have waited for almost two 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 petitioners is found to be wholly just and
proper. Accordingly, the award dated 3.6.2025 shall stand modified.
11. Let 50% of the awarded amount i.e. ₹ 4,00,000/- (₹ 87,500/- to petitioner
No.1 and ₹ 62,500/- (each) to petitioners No.2 to 6) along with proportionate
interest be released in favour of the petitioners 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…