Disposed

Hiralal Singh and Another v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025WRIC/41028/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents of a woman killed in a railway accident challenged the Tribunal's release of only Rs. 80,000 from an Rs. 8 lakh award. The court held the fixed-deposit practice cannot be applied as a rule of thumb and directed release of 75% of the award with proportionate interest.

What did the court decide?

Release of Rs. 6,00,000 (75% of award) with proportionate interest to petitioners within four weeks; balance invested in term deposit for three years; right to seek enhancement preserved.

Hiralal Singh and Another vs Union of India and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 41028 of 2025

¶3

Hiralal Singh And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Gaurav Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I.

¶8

Court No. - 5

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

The solitary grievance of the petitioners is that only Rs. 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 07.10.2025 is inequitable, unjust and grossly inadequate. It defeats the purpose of award of compensation for death caused to the daughter of the petitioners in a railway accident.

¶12

A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 21.09.2023, Shivani, daughter of petitioners suffered fatal injuries and died on spot. Arising therefrom, the petitioners instituted a claim petition on 30.10.2023 which has been decided on 07.10.2025, almost two years after the occurrence of the accident. Even then, by that award, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. 4,00,000/- each has been awarded to petitioners).

¶13

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.

¶14

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 Rs. 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 at least seventy five per cent of the

¶15

WRIC No. 41028 of 2025

¶16

¶17

awarded amount to the petitioners.

¶18

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.

¶19

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/petitioners who lost their daughter 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

In the present case, petitioner No. 1 is the father and petitioner no. 2 is mother of the deceased. They have waited for two 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/-.

¶22

Accordingly, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners for release of at least seventy five per cent of the awarded amount to the petitioners, is found to be wholly just and proper. Accordingly, the award dated 30.07.2025 shall stand modified.

¶23

Let 75% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. 3,00,000/- each to both the petitioners) 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

¶24

WRIC No. 41028 of 2025

¶25

¶26

for a period of three years.

¶27

With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of .

¶28

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.

¶29

Also, this order has been passed independent of the right of the petitioners to claim enhancement, if advised.

¶30

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶31

November 21, 2025

¶32

Ved Prakash

¶33

Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hiralal Singh and Another v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiralal Singh and Another v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gyanti Devi vs Mitthu

Udaiveer and 3 Others vs Sahdev Singh and Another

Ram Bhavan vs Shri Ram and 5 Others

Santosh Kumar vs Debt Recovery Tribunal Court and 4 Others

Ashwani Kumar vs Mahesh Chandra Verma and 6 Others

Smt. Shashi vs Smt. Amrawati and 3 Others