Khushyial and Another vs Union of India and Another

The solitary grievance of the petitioners is that the amount of Rs. 80,000/- has been directed to be released in favour of the claimant/petitioners by the impugned award of the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal dated 24.10.2025 is inequitable, unjust and grossly inadequate. It defeats the purpose of award of compensation for death caused to the son of the present petitioners in a railway accident.

¶11

A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 20.11.2024, Mohd. Sufiyan, son of petitioners suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot. Arising therefrom, the petitioners instituted a claim petition on 26.12.2024. It has been decided on 24.10.2025, almost one year after the occurrence of the accident. Even then, by that award, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,00,000/- (in all) to the petitioners.

¶12

The Tribunal has provided for release of Rs. 80,000/- to the petitioners and the balance is to be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years.

¶13

Petitioners are more than 60 years of age and are aggrieved by the wholly inadequate amount directed to be released, in a mechanical manner. Looking at the total compensation awarded, a sum of Rs.

¶14

WRIC No. 40252 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

80,000/- would be released at present though the petitioners claim that compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been awarded. At present, the petitioners pray for release of entire awarded amount.

¶17

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.

¶18

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 claimants who lost their 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

In the present case, petitioner No. 1 is the father of the deceased and petitioner No. 2 is mother of the deceased. They have waited for about 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 Rs. 8,00,000/-.

¶21

Accordingly, the award dated 24.10.2025 shall stand modified.

¶22

Let 75% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- each to petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 along with proportionate interest be released 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

¶23

WRIC No. 40252 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

highest bearing term deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of three years.

¶26