Allahabad High Court
NOORJAHAN KHATUNversusUNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court modified the award, directing release of 75% of the compensation (Rs. 6,00,000) with interest and investing the balance for three years.
Summary
The petitioner, mother 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 be released immediately, with the balance to be kept in a fixed deposit for three years. She argued that the amount was inequitable and that she should receive the full award without further delay. The respondent (Railways) contended that retaining ninety percent was in the petitioner’s interest to earn interest. The Allahabad High Court held that while part‑payment and deposit of the balance is a general principle, it must be applied flexibly based on the claimant’s circumstances, and the petitioner’s hardship warranted a larger immediate release. Consequently, the court modified the award, directing release of 75% (Rs. 6,00,000) with proportionate interest and investing the remainder for three years. The writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal's order to release only Rs. 80,000 of the Rs. 8,00,000 award is equitable and should be modified.
- Whether the court can direct a higher proportion of the compensation to be released immediately, considering the claimant's circumstances.
Subjects
- Railway Accident Claims Tribunal
- compensation
- partial release of award
- fixed deposit
- discretion
- writ petition
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10460 of 2026
Noorjahan Khatun
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India Represented And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Gaurav Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anju Srivastava
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Anju Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the
record.
2. The solitary grievance of the petitioner is that the amount of Rs.
80,000/- has been directed to be released in favour of the
claimant/petitioner by the impugned award of the Railway Accident
Claims Tribunal dated 02.12.2025 is inequitable, unjust and grossly
inadequate. It defeats the purpose of award of compensation for death
caused to the son of the present petitioner in a railway accident.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on
05.06.2022, Md. Fatkan, son of the petitioner suffered fatal injuries and
died. Arising therefrom, the petitioner instituted a claim petition on
10.10.2022. It has been decided on 02.12.2025, almost three years after
the occurrence of the accident. Even then, by that award, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs. 8,00,000/- to the petitioner.
4. The Tribunal has provided for release of Rs. 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 Rs. 80,000/- would be released at present though the
WRIC No. 10460 of 2026
2
petitioner claim that compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been awarded. At
present, the petitioners pray for release of entire awarded amount.
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.
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 claimants, 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 who lost her son and
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 is mother of the deceased, she has waited
for almost three 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 Rs. 8,00,000/-.
10. Accordingly, the award dated 02.12.2025 shall stand modified.
11. Let 75% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs. 6,00,000/- 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.
WRIC No. 10460 of 2026
3
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
petitioners to claim enhancement, if advised.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
March 19, 2026
Nitika Sri./Rishabh
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…