Allahabad High Court
SMT. SHANTIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court modified the Tribunal's order and directed the release of the entire awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 with interest to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Shanti, challenged the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal's order that only Rs. 80,000 of the Rs. 8,00,000 compensation awarded for the death of her son be released immediately, with the balance placed in a fixed deposit for three years. She argued that the partial release was inequitable, especially given her advanced age and the eleven‑year delay in obtaining the award. The respondent, the Railways, contended that the deferred release was intended to benefit the claimant through accrued interest. The High Court held that while partial releases are a general practice, they must be applied flexibly based on the facts, and in this case the entire amount should be released promptly. Accordingly, the court modified the award, directing the full Rs. 8,00,000 plus interest to be paid within four weeks, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate quantum of compensation to be released immediately versus kept in a fixed deposit under a Railway Accident Claims Tribunal award?
- Does the court have discretion to modify the Tribunal's partial release order in light of the claimant's circumstances?
- Is the petitioner entitled to the entire awarded amount without waiting for the stipulated deposit period?
Subjects
- Railway Accident Claims Tribunal
- compensation award
- partial release
- fixed deposit
- judicial discretion
- writ petition
- injury compensation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10372 of 2026
Smt. Shanti
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Babu Dubey
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 petitioner is that only ₹ 80,000/- 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
11.8.2025 is inequitable, unjust and grossly inadequate. It defeats the
purpose of award of compensation for death caused to the son of
petitioner in a railway accident.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 24.10.2024,
Kirat alias Suraj, son of petitioner suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. Arising
therefrom, petitioner instituted a claim petition on 30.6.2014 which has been decided
on 11.8.2025, almost more than eleven 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 ₹ 80,000/- to the petitioner and the
balance is to be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years.
5. Petitioner is 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 petitioner claims that
compensation of ₹ 8,00,000/- has been awarded. At present, the
petitioner prays for release of the entire awarded amount to the
petitioner.
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. 10372 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, who lost
her unmarried 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, aged about 76 years,
have waited for almost eleven 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 petitioner for release of
the entire awarded amount to the petitioner is found to be wholly just and proper.
Accordingly, the award dated 11.8.2025 shall stand modified.
11. Let the awarded amount i.e. ₹ 8,00,000/- 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.
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 19, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…