Allahabad High Court
DINESH KUMAR PATELversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court modified the award, directing release of 75% of the compensation (₹2,40,000) with interest and investing the balance for three years.
Summary
The petitioner suffered a leg amputation in a railway accident on 31‑01‑2020 and filed a claim on 29‑06‑2021. The Railway Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of ₹3,20,000 on 23‑02‑2026 but ordered that only ₹32,000 be released immediately, with the balance to be kept in a fixed deposit for three years. The petitioner challenged this partial release as inequitable and sought at least 75% of the award to be paid forthwith. The Court held that while partial release is a common practice, the discretion must be exercised based on the facts, noting the long delay and the modest total award. Accordingly, the Court modified the Tribunal’s order, directing the release of ₹2,40,000 (75% of the award) with proportionate interest within four weeks and directing the balance to be invested in a high‑yield term deposit for three years. The writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the partial release of ₹32,000 from the awarded compensation is adequate and just in the circumstances.
- Whether the High Court can modify the Tribunal's order to release a higher percentage of the awarded amount.
- How the principle of partial release and investment of the balance should be applied in individual cases.
Subjects
- railway accident
- compensation
- partial release
- fixed deposit
- discretion
- writ petition
- Railway Accident Claims Tribunal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10412 of 2026
Dinesh Kumar Patel
.....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.Parcha filed today by Shri Arvind Nath Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of respondent
No.1 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The solitary grievance of the petitioner is that only ₹32,000/- 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 23.2.2026 is inequitable, unjust
and grossly inadequate. It defeats the purpose of award of compensation for injuries
caused to the petitioner in a railway accident.
4. A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 31.1.2020,
petitioner suffered injuries in a railway accident and his left leg has been amputated.
Arising therefrom, petitioner instituted a claim petition on 29.6.2021 which has been
decided on 23.2.2026, almost more than five year after the occurrence of the accident.
Even then, by that award, the Tribunal has awarded ₹ 3,20,000/- to the
petitioner/claimant.
5. The Tribunal has provided for release of ₹ 32,000/- to the petitioner and the balance
is to be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years.
6. 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 ₹ 32,000/-
would be released at present though the petitioner claims that compensation of ₹
3,20,000/- has been awarded. At present, the petitioners pray for release of at least
75% of the awarded amount to the petitioner.
7. 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
petitioner as she is likely to receive a higher amount after three years upon accrual of
interest.
WRIC No. 10412 of 2026
2
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. In the present case, petitioner has waited for more than one year 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 ₹ 3,20,000/-.
11. Accordingly, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for release of at
least 75% of the awarded amount to the petitioner is found to be wholly just and
proper. Accordingly, the award dated 23.2.2026 shall stand modified.
12. Let 75% of the awarded amount i.e. ₹ 2,40,000/- 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.
13. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of.
March 19, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…