HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33026 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. 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 21.03.2025 is inequitable, unjust and grossly inadequate. It defeats the purpose of award of compensation for death caused to the husband of the petitioner no.1 in a railway accident. 3. A perusal of the record reveals that in a railway accident occurred on 14.03.2020, Tauqeer the husband of petitioner No.1 and son of petitioner no.2 suffered fatal injuries and died on on the spot. Arising therefrom, the petitioners instituted a claim petition on 22.09.2020. It has been decided on 21.03.2025 almost 5 years after the occurrence of the accident. Even then, by that award, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner no.1 (wife of the deceased) and Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner no.2, (mother of the deceased). 4. 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. 5. Petitioner no.1 is about 23 years of age and petitioner nos.2 is aged about 65 years and they are aggrieved by the wholly inadequate amount directed to be released, in a mechanical manner. Looking at the total Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Gaurav Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Rabi And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And Another .....Respondent(s) 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 entire awarded amount. 6. 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. 7. 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 petitioners, who lost their husband and son respectively, 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 claimant. 8. 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. 9. In the present case, petitioner No. 1 is the wife of the deceased and petitioner No. 2 is the mother of the deceased. They have waited for five 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/-. 10. Accordingly, the award dated 21.03.2025 shall stand modified. 11. Let 50% of the awarded amount to the petitioner no.1 i.e. Rs. 2,00,000 /- and 75% of the awarded amount to the petitioner no.2 i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be released in favour of the WRIC No. 33026 of 2025 2 petitioner nos.1 and 2 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. 12. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. 13. 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. 14. Also, this order has been passed independent of the right of the petitioners to claim enhancement, if advised. September 19, 2025 Mini WRIC No. 33026 of 2025 3 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad