Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010005012026 2026:GAU-AS:12236 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./59/2026 MISS SAHIN AKHTAR AHMED D/O LATE ABDUL SATTAR 2: ASRAF TANBIR S/O LATE ABDUL SATTAR BOTH ARE R/O VILL. KABARSTAN ROAD P.S. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT PIN 78505 PRESENT ADDRESS NAHARANI (MAJGAON) P.S. DERGAON P.O. NAHARANI DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN 78562 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI 11 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J MOLLAH, MS. S P DAS,MRS. A BHANU Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S K MEDHI BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND JUDGMENT Page No.# 2/9 Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. J. Mollah; Ms. S. P. Das Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, Dy. SGI; Ms. L. Devi Date on which judgment is reserved : 26.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment : Full judgment. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. J. Mollah and Ms. S. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, DSGI and Ms. L. Devi representing the respondents. 2. This review application under Order XLVII Rule 1, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (CPC for short), has been filed by the petitioners Ms. Sahin Akhtar Ahmed and Asraf Tanbir. The petitioners have prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 18.12.2025 passed by this Court in connection with MFA No. 02/2020. The respondent is the Union of India, represented by the General Manager N.F. Railway, Maligaon. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Gazette notification G.S.R. 1165 (E) dated 22.12.2016, issued by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4 lacs to Rs. 8 lacs in death cases. It is submitted that on 21.02.2026, the applicants’/appellants’ father Abdul Sattar, accidentally fell down from a running Page No.# 3/9 train and sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized. Unfortunately, Abdul Sattar succumbed to his injuries. A Claim application being O.A. II U 72/2018 was filed for a compensation of Rs. 10 lacs but was dismissed by the Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench vide order dated 23.09.2019. Against this order, the MFA No. 02/2020 was filed before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners laid stress in his argument that this Court has misconstrued the decision of the Supreme Court in Para-19 of Doli Rani Saha’s case and Paras-15.1to 15.4 of Rina Devi's case, and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4 lacs instead of Rs. 8 lacs. It is further submitted that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC 656 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rina Devi (2019) 3 SCC 572, this Court ought to have awarded a compensation of Rs. 8 lacs as after calculating interest at 6%, the entire amount becomes much less than Rs. 8 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Doli Rani Saha’s case (Supra), wherein vide order dated 09.08.2024, it has been held that: “In Rina Devi (supra), this Court held that the claimant would be entitled to interest from the date of the accident and, in case the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the grant of compensation, the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. The principle which has been laid down in Rina Devi (supra) serves a salutary purpose. This was noticed in the decision in Radha Yadav (supra) where it was observed that "the idea is to afford the benefit of the amendment, to the extent possible" 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rina Devi (Supra), wherein vide order dated 09.08.2018, it has been held that:- “In Rathi Menon (supra), this Court considered the question whether the compensation to be applied would be as per rules applicable on the Page No.# 4/9 date of the order or as per the rules in force at the time of accident or the untoward incident. Reversing the view taken by the Kerala High Court that the liability to pay compensation arises as soon as accident happens and not when the quantum is determined, this Court held that liability is to pay compensation 'as may be prescribed' which means as on the date of the order of the Tribunal. This Court observed that if Interpretation placed by the Kerala High Court was to be accepted and the claimant was to get compensation in terms of market value which prevailed on the date of the accident, the money value of the compensation will be reduced value on account of lapse of time. The revision of rate by the Central Government may itself show that the money value has come down. The Tribunal must apply the rate applicable as per the rules at the time of making of the order for payment of compensation This Court distinguished judgments of the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), P.A. Narayanan versus Union of India and Maghar Singh versus Jashwant Singh, it was observed that Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) and Maghar Singh (supra) were Judgments under the Workmen Compensation Act where the scheme was different as in the said Act there was a provision for Interest and penalty if deposit was not made. Judgment in P.A. Narayanan (supra) was relied upon to support the view that therein compensation was awarded even though accident was of a date much earlier to the rules providing for compensation. 15.2 Learned ASG for the appellant submitted that view in Rathi Menon (supra) stands watered down by subsequent decisions especially In Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra), Mohamadi (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra). Rathi Menon (supra) was premised on the basis that there was no taw for interest and there will be injustice if compensation was paid at money value which had got reduced by the time the compensation was paid. Factually Interest was awarded in Rathi Menon (Supra). It was on that basis that Judgments In Workmen Compensation cases were held to be distinguishable though the said judgments are of larger Benches Subsequently in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra), it has been held by this Court, after referring to Rathi Menon (supra), that right to claim compensation accrued on the date of the Incident though compensation is computed on the date of the award of the Tribunal. To compensate for loss of money value on account of lapse of time and for the denial of right to utilize the money when due, Interest was required to be paid Accordingly, this Court directed payment Page No.# 5/9 of Interest on the awarded sum from the date of application till the date of recovery. This view was followed in Mohamadi (supra). In Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra), without any specific discussion on the legal issue Involved, direction was issued for payment of compensation which was applicable at the material time and the same was assumed to be of Rs.4 lakhs. In that case, the accident took place in the year 2005 and the award of the Tribunal was in 2009 1.e. prior to 1st January, 2017. 15.3. Learned amicus has referred to judgments of this Court in Raman Iron Foundry (supra) and Kesoram Industries (supra) to submit that quantum of compensation applicable is to be as on the award of the Tribunal as the amount due is only on that day and not earlier. In Kesoram Industries (supra), the question was when for purposes of calculating 'net wealth' under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 provision for payment of tax could be treated as 'debt owed within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the said Act. This Court held that 'debt' was obligation to pay. The sum payable on a contingency, however, does not become 'debt until the said contingency happens. The liability to pay tax arises on such tax being quantified. But when the rate of tax is ascertainable, the amount can be treated as debt for the year for which the tax is due for purposes of valuation during the accounting year in question. There is no conflict in the ratio of this judgment with the principle propounded in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra) that in the present context right to compensation arises on the date of the accident. In Raman Iron Foundry (supra), the question was whether a claim for unliquidated damages does not give rise to 'a debt till the liability is determined. It was held that no debt arises from a claim for unliquidated damages until the liability is adjudicated. Even from this judgment it is not possible to hold that the liability for compensation, in the present context, arises only on determination thereof and not on the date of accident. Since it has been held that interest is required to be paid, the premise on which Rathi Menon (supra) is based has changed. We are of the view that law in the present context should be taken to be that the liability will accrue on the date of the accident and the amount applicable as on that date will be the amount recoverable but the claimant will get interest from the date of accident till the payment at such rate as may be considered just and fair from time to time. In this context, rate of Interest applicable in motor accident claim cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. Once concept of interest has been introduced, principles of Workmen Compensation Act can certainly be applied and Page No.# 6/9 judgment of 4-Judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) will fully apply. Wherever it is found that the revised amount of applicable compensation as on the date of award of the Tribunal is less than the prescribed amount of compensation as on the date of accident with interest, higher of the two amounts ought to be awarded on the principle of beneficial legislation. Present legislation is certainly a piece of beneficial legislation. 15.4 Accordingly, we conclude that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases. If the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts. This order will not affect the awards which have already become final and where limitation for challenging such awards has expired, this order will not by itself be a ground for condonation of delay. Seeming conflict in Rathi Menon (supra) and Kalandi Charan Sahoo (supra) stands explained accordingly. The 4- Judge Bench Judgment In Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) holds the field on the subject and squarely applies to the present situation. Compensation as applicable on the date of the accident has to be given with reasonable interest and to give effect to the mandate of beneficial legislation, if compensation as provided on the date of award of the Tribunal is higher than unrevised amount with interest, the higher of the two amounts has to be given.” 6. Per contra, the DSGI for the Union of India laid stress in his argument that this issue cannot be raised through a revision petition. The petitioner is trying to upturn the entire judgment on merits. It is thereby submitted that an appeal has to be preferred and the review petition is not maintainable. 7. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC says:- “Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, Page No.# 7/9 and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.” 8. At this juncture, it is apt to mention that the original record of MFA 02/2020 was called for. The record clearly reveals that the petitioner had earlier not relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India. The petitioner had only relied on the decision of Union of India vs. Rina Devi (supra). In Rina Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that:- “if the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts.” 9. It is germane to mention that as the Tribunal vide order dated 23.09.2019 in application No. O.A.II U-72/2018 had dismissed the application and thus no compensation was apportioned in favour of the petitioners, there is no question of a higher compensation or a lower compensation to the prescribed limits. To explain it more clearly, the compensation amount was not apportioned by the Tribunal but the compensation amount was apportioned by this High Court in connection with MFA No. 02/2020. Careful interpretation reveals that there may have been an error which is apparent because an appeal is a continuation of a suit. 10. The other ground which is taken up for consideration, is that the record of Page No.# 8/9 the Tribunal clearly reveals that at the decision of the Supreme Court in Doli Rani Saha vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 8605/2024), was not relied upon by the petitioners. It is not at all ambiguous in the decision of Doli Rani Saha (supra) that the claimant would be entitled to interest from the date of the accident and, in case of amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of grant of compensation, (and the word compensation has to be underscored), the claimant would be entitled to the higher of the two amounts. 11. It is therefore held that review petition is maintainable as the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of this Court on the account of discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced by the petitioners at the time when the impugned order was passed. It is also held that error is apparent on the face of the record and the review petition may be allowed on other sufficient reasons which have been explained in the foregoing discussions. 12. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Doli Rani Saha (supra), the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2025 in connection with MFA No. 02/2020 is reviewed and modified and the respondent is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 8 lacs to the petitioners/claimants with interest at 6% from the date of application to the date of payment. 13. In terms of the above observation, this review application stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 9/9 Comparing Assistant