Mantu Sah and 5 Others vs Union of India and Another

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 3.6.2025 is inequitable, unjust and grossly inadequate. It defeats the purpose of award of compensation for death caused to wife of petitioner no.1 in a railway accident.

¶11

A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 20.6.2023, Shanti Devi, wife of petitioner No.1 suffered fatal injuries and died on the spot in the night of 19-20/06/2026. Arising therefrom, petitioners instituted a claim petition on 12.10.2023 which has been decided on 3.6.2025, almost two years after the occurrence of the accident. Even then, by that award, the Tribunal has awarded ₹ 8,00,000/- to the claimants (₹ 1,75,000/- to petitioner No.1 & ₹ 1,25,000/- (each) to petitioner Nos.2 to 6, sons and daughters of the deceased).

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

WRIC No. 10179 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

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 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 wife, 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 husband and petitioners no.2 to 6 are sons and daughters of the deceased have waited for almost 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 ₹ 8,00,000/-.

¶21

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 3.6.2025 shall stand modified.

¶22

Let 50% of the awarded amount i.e. ₹ 4,00,000/- (₹ 87,500/- to petitioner No.1 and ₹ 62,500/- (each) to petitioners No.2 to 6) 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.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

March 18, 2026 Rishabh

¶27

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mantu Sah and 5 Others v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mantu Sah and 5 Others v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Hadisunnisha Vs Degree College Association and 6 Others

Mohd. Yakub and Others Vs Board of Revenue and Others

Sri. Amar Sahu and Another Vs Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and 3 Others

Parvej Alam Vs Smt. Mahe Aasmin

Anil Kumar Vs Mahendra Prasad and 4 Others

Bandana @ Bandana Chauhan and Another Vs Phoolchandra and 2 Others