Orissa High Court
Ganache Naik And Another vs Presiding Officer on 8 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 343 of 2020
Ganache Naik and another .... Appellants
Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, Advocate
-versus-
Presiding Officer, Railway Claims .... Opp. Parties
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and
another
Mr. Dhanoj Kumar Sahoo,
Standing Counsel for East Cost Railways
(For Respondent No.2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R.MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 08.10.2021
4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This appeal is filed by the Claimants, who are the mother
and brother of deceased-Umesh Naik under Section 23 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act, 1987')
being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28th January,
2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar
Bench, Bhubaneswar (for short, 'the learned Tribunal') in OA
No.42 of 2017 assailing the mode of payment of compensation
amount.
3. Though this matter was listed for Orders today, on the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up
for final disposal.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that
the legal issue involved in this appeal is similar to FAO Nos.264
of 2020 and batch of appeals disposed of by this Court vide
judgment dated 9th September, 2021 and the present Appeal may
be disposed of in the light of the said judgment.
// 2 //
5. Mr.Sahoo, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways-
Respondent, however, submits that although the facts and law
involved in this case is similar, but Claimants should approach
learned Tribunal by filing appropriate application for variation in
the condition and mode of payment of the compensation amount.
In that event, learned Tribunal will be in a position to pass
necessary orders on their application.
6. Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the Appellants submits
that since Railways could not produce any material before the
learned Tribunal to justify restriction in disbursement of
compensation, remittance of the matter to learned Tribunal will
be an empty formality only, and thereby the claimant(s) will be
highly prejudiced. It appears from the impugned award that
learned Tribunal has not assigned any reason for not disbursing
the entire awarded amount in favour of the Claimants instead of
directing a major portion to be deposited in a fixed deposit
scheme. It appears that the Claimants/Appellants being the
mother and brother of the deceased are major and do not have
either any physical or mental disability. There is also no material
to show that the Claimants-Appellants are likely to be exploited by
any middleman. As such, the case of the Appellants is squarely
covered by the ratio decided in the aforesaid batch of appeals.
7. Hence, this Appeal is disposed of in terms of the
judgment and order passed on 9th September, 2021 by this Court,
as aforesaid, operative portion of which is quoted herein below
for reference and convenience of the parties.
"18. In that view of the matter, all the appeals are
allowed and learned Tribunal is directed to disburse
the awarded amount by liquidating the fixed deposits, if
any, to the claimants on proper identification, as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of
one month from the date of filing of an application
// 3 //
along with certified copy of this order following due
procedure of law. In the circumstances, there shall be
no order as to cost."
8. Accordingly, it is directed that learned Tribunal shall
disburse the awarded amount by liquidating the fixed deposits, if
any, to the claimant(s) on proper identification, as expeditiously
as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date
of filing of an application along with certified copy of this order
following due procedure of law. The Claimant(s)/Appellant(s)
is/are directed to submit his/her (their) A/c details of any
nationalized bank as per the requirement along with the
application form for disbursal of the compensation amount, as
aforesaid.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
bks
