HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36305 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1.Shri Ugrasen Kumar Pandey, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of on behalf Union of India/respondent no. 1 which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Shiv Babu Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ugrasen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record. 3. 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 11.06.2025 is inequitable, unjust and grossly inadequate. It defeats the purpose of award of compensation for death caused to the father of the petitioners in a railway accident. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 17.01.2013, Nekse Ram father of petitioners suffered fatal injuries and died on spot. Arising therefrom, the petitioners instituted a claim petition on 17.06.2014 which has been decided on 11.06.2025, almost eleven 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 both petitioners (sons). 5. 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. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Babu Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Rameshwar And Another .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And Another .....Respondent(s) 6. 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 hundred per cent of the awarded amount to the petitioners. 7. 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. 8. 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 father and on whom 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. 9. 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. 10. In the present case, petitioner No. 1 is aged about 70 years and petitioner No. 2 is aged about 67 years. They have waited for eleven 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/-. 11. Accordingly, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners for release of hundred per cent of the awarded amount to the petitioners, is found to be wholly just and proper. Accordingly, the award dated 11.06.2025, shall stand modified. WRIC No. 36305 of 2025 2 12. Let 100% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs. 8,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be released in favour of the petitioners (Rs. 4,00,000/- each to both the petitioners) within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 13. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. 14. 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. 15. Also, this order has been passed independent of the right of the petitioners to claim enhancement, if advised. October 17, 2025 Ved Prakash WRIC No. 36305 of 2025 3 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad