Smt. Lilawati Devi and 3 Others vs Union of India through General Manager

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 4.7.2025 is inequitable, unjust and grossly inadequate. It defeats the purpose of award of compensation for death caused to the husband of the petitioner no.1 in a railway accident.

A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 17.5.2017, Sukhdev, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 suffered fatal injuries and died on 17.5.2017. Arising therefrom, the petitioners instituted a claim petition on 5.10.2017 which has been decided on 4.7.2025 almost seven years after the occurrence of the accident. Even then, by that award, the Tribunal has awarded ₹ 8,00,000/- ( ₹ 5,00,000/- has been awarded to petitioner no.1(wife) & ₹ 1,00,000/- (each) has been awarded topetitioners no. 2, 3 & 4, son and daughters of the deceased.

The Tribunal has provided for release of ₹ 8 0,000/- to the petitioners and the balance is to be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years.

WRIC No. 39958 of 2025

2

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 petitioner no.1 and 25% (each) to petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4.

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.

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/petitioner no.1 who lost her husband and petitioners No.2, 3 & 4, who lost their father 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 claimants.

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.

In the present case, petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased and petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 are son and daughters of the deceased respectively. They have waited for more than seven years from the occurrence of death for award of the compensation. The compensation awarded at the moment is also not excessive but a

WRIC No. 39958 of 2025

3

modest sum of ₹ 8,00,000/-.

Accordingly, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners for release of at least 50% of the awarded amount to petitioner no.1 (wife) and 25% (each) to petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 (son and daughters of the deceased), is found to be wholly just and proper. Accordingly, the award dated 4.7.2025 shall stand modified.

Let 50% of the awarded amount i.e. ₹ 2,50,000/- along with proportionate interest be released in favour of the petitioner no.1 (wife) and 25% of the awarded amount i.e. ₹ 25 ,000/- to petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 (son and daughters of the deceased) 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.