p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.43 of 2026 CNR No.ODHC010084462026 Union of India …. Petitioner(s) Ms. Sulochana Patro, CGC -versus- S. Narayan Reddy …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Beda Prakash Panda, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI Order No. 04. ORDER 30.07.2026 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In this instant application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the “CPC”), the Petitioner/Union of India (hereinafter referred to as the “Review Petitioner”) prays to review/recall the judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed by this Court in FAO No.62 of 2020. 3. In order to avoid confusion and for the sake of convenience, it is to be reminded that the Review Petitioner is the sole Respondent and the Opposite Party herein is the Appellant in FAO No.62 of 2020, which has been decided by this Court in favour of the Appellant therein (OP herein). Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 31-Jul-2026 16:21:43 Signature Not Verified p. 2 4. Since the facts involved in this case has been dealt with in extenso in the FAO, this Court does not feel it necessary to recapitulate/reiterate the same and confines itself to the grounds of review of the final order as advanced by the Petitioner in the review petition. It appears that the Petitioner seeks to review the aforesaid judgment on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of record and thereby, there exists sufficient reason to review such order as passed in the FAO. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is apparent from the records that the review-Petitioner has sought to review of the judgment on the ground that the compensation is payable as applicable on the date of incident with interest. In the present case, the date of incident is 03.06.2014. As such, the compensation should be as per the prescribed compensation as on the date of accident i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- along with a reasonable rate of interest. In support of such contention, she placed reliance in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi.1 7. She further contends that prior to the 01.01.2017, the amount of compensation in a death case as laid down in Part-I of the Schedule of Rule-3 in Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 was Rs.4,00,000/- and which was enhanced to Rs.8,00,000/- for the incident on or after 01.01.2017. 1 (2019) 3 SCC 572. Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 31-Jul-2026 16:21:43 Signature Not Verified p. 3 8. She further contends that the Opposite Party is entitled to compensation of Rs.6,73,140/- (taking base amount of compensation Rs.4,00,000/-) with interest @ 6%) and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, they are entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- in toto without any interest thereupon. 9. It is well settled of law that the power of review can also be exercised by the Court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on account of some mistake. Furthermore, an application for review shall also lie for any other sufficient reason. 10. It is well settled that the power of review can be exercised where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or where material evidence or a binding legal provision has not been considered. Upon examination of the judgment dated 17.10.2025, in paragraph no.19, this Court observed as follows: “19. The impugned judgement/order is set aside, and the appellant is held entitled to statutory compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only), together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application until the date of actual realization.” 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present case falls within the permissible parameters of review jurisdiction. The Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 31-Jul-2026 16:21:43 Signature Not Verified p. 4 omission has resulted in an erroneous decision in the FAO, warranting interference by this Court to the interest part of the compensation awarded which has been found place at paragraph 19 of the aforesaid judgment. 12. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed in part. The judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in FAO No.62 of 2020 is hereby recalled and modified to the extent that the Appellant/claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,0000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only). The Railways shall deposit the amount before the Tribunal within three months, whereupon it shall be disbursed to the Appellant/Claimant in accordance with law. 13. The Tribunal is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount to the Appellant/ Claimant by way of account transfer or cheque and the rest of the amount to be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit account for a period of three years or subject to the order of the Tribunal. 14. Accordingly, this RVWPET is disposed of. 15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 16. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of. 17. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules. ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Sipun ORISSA, CUTTACK