Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128581 Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28818 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt Rani Devi And Another Respondent :- Union of India Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Babu Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Kumar Singh,A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The solitary grievance of the petitioner is that the amount of Rs. 90,000/- has been directed to be released in favour of the claimants/petitioners by the impugned award of the Railway Accident Claims Tribunal dated 13.05.2022 is inequitable, unjust and grossly inadequate. It defeats the purpose of award of compensation for death caused to the husband of the present petitioner no. 1 in a railway accident. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 27.03.2010, Shiv Prasad, husband of the present petitioner no. 1 suffered fatal injuries and died. Arising therefrom, the petitioner instituted a claim petition on 13.07.2012. It has been decided on 13.05.2022, almost ten years after the occurrence of the accident. Even then, by that award, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,00,000/- (in all) to the petitioners, out of which Rs. 4,00,000/ was awarded to wife (petitioner no. 1), Rs. 2,00,000/ was awarded to son (petitioner no. 2) and Rs. 1,00,000/- each to mother & father of the deceased. 5. The Tribunal has provided for release of 15% i.e. Rs. 90,000/- of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. 4,00,000/- for wife + Rs. 2,00,000 for son) to the petitioner and the balance is to be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of three years. 6. Petitioner no. 1 is 36 years of age (wrongly described as 23 years in the petition) and is aggrieved by the wholly inadequate amount directed to be released, in a mechanical manner. Looking at the total compensation awarded, a sum of Rs. 90,000/- would be released at present though the petitioners claim that compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- has been awarded. At present, the petitioners pray for release of the awarded amount. 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 petitioner as she is 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 claimant who lost her husband 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. 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 the wife of the deceased. She have waited for about ten 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/- to all the claimants. 11. Accordingly, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for release of the awarded amount is found to be wholly just and proper. Accordingly, the award dated 13.05.2022 shall stand modified. 12. Let the awarded amount i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest be released in favour of the petitioner no. 1 within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Petitioner no. 2 being minor the amount awarded be not released till he attains majority with liberty to petitioner no. 2 to move application for release after attaining majority, if he so desires. The amount awarded to minor i.e. petitioner no. 2 as directed by tribunal to be invested shall continue to be deposited till its majority and subject to any application made by petitioner no. 2. 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. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad