Allahabad High Court
SMT. USHA DEVI AND 3 OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court modified the award to release fifty percent of the compensation immediately, deeming it just and proper.
Summary
The petitioners, the widow and three daughters of a railway accident victim, challenged the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal's order that only Rs. 80,000 of the Rs. 8,00,000 compensation award be released immediately, with the balance placed in a three‑year fixed deposit. They argued that the partial release was inequitable given the nine‑year delay in obtaining the award and their immediate financial needs. The Railway argued that retaining ninety percent of the award was in the petitioners' interest to accrue interest. The High Court held that while partial retention is a general principle, discretion must be exercised based on the facts, and the petitioners' circumstances warranted a larger immediate release. Consequently, the Court modified the award to release fifty percent (Rs. 4,00,000) within four weeks, with the remainder to be deposited for three years. The writ petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal's order to release only Rs. 80,000 of the compensation award is just and adequate.
- Whether the court can modify the proportion of compensation to be released immediately versus retained in a fixed deposit.
- Whether the discretion to retain a portion of the award should be exercised differently given the petitioners' circumstances.
Subjects
- Railway accident
- Compensation
- Partial release
- Railway Accident Claims Tribunal
- Writ petition
- Judicial discretion
- Fixed deposit
- Interest
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10436 of 2026
Smt. Usha Devi And 3 Others
.....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., Archana Srivastava
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
27.11.2025 is inequitable, unjust and grossly inadequate. It defeats the
purpose of award of compensation for death caused to husband of
petitioner no.1 in a railway accident.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 25.12.2015,
Ghanshyam, husband of petitioner No.1 suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot.
Arising therefrom, petitioners instituted a claim petition in the year 2016 which has
been decided on 27.11.2025, almost more than nine years after the occurrence of the
accident. Even then, by that award, the Tribunal has awarded ₹ 8,00,000/- to the
claimants (₹ 3,50,000/- to petitioner No.1 and ₹ 1,50,000/- (each) to
petitioner Nos.2 to 4, 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. 10436 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 husband, 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 wife and petitioners no.2 to 4 are daughters of
the deceased have waited for almost nine 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 27.11.2025 shall stand modified.
11. Let 50% of the awarded amount i.e. ₹ 4,00,000/- (₹ 1,75,000 to petitioner
No.1, ₹75,000/- to petitioner No.2, ₹75,000/- to petitioner No.3 and
₹75,000/- to petitioner No.4 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 19, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…