Dugana Lakshmi & Anr vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 7549 Ori

Orissa High Court

Dugana Lakshmi & Anr vs Union Of India on 25 April, 2025

Author: S.K. Panigrahi

Bench: S.K. Panigrahi

                                                                  Signature Not Verified
                                                                  Digitally Signed
                                                                  Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                  Reason: Authentication
                                                                  Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
                                                                  Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               FAO No. 244 of 2024

       (From the orders dated 26.04.2024 and 20.05.2024 passed by the
       learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in Misc. No.
       56/2024 (arising out of OA No.48/2017)

       Dugana Lakshmi & Anr.                       ....                      Appellant(s)
                                       -versus-
       Union of India                              ....                Respondent (s)
     Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

       For Appellant (s)           :                    Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Adv.



       For Respondent (s)          :                      Ms. Sulochana Patra, CGC

                 CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                     DATE OF HEARING:-07.04.2025
                    DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.04.2025
     Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the Appellants are assailing the orders dated

26.04.2024 and 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims

Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in Misc. No. 56/2024 (arising out of OA

No.48/2017), whereby they have been directed to open individual

Savings Bank Accounts in a nationalized bank located near their place

of permanent residence.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(i) The appellants, being the legal representatives of the deceased,

Dugana Samba Murthy, who tragically lost his life in a railway

accident while traveling as a bona fide passenger faced an untoward

incident, filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar. They sought compensation to the tune of ₹8 lakhs for

the death of the deceased, and the claim was registered as O.A. No. 48

of 2017.

(ii) The said claim application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal

vide order dated 28.01.2020.

(iii) Aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim, the appellants preferred an

appeal bearing F.A.O. No. 315 of 2020.

(iv) This Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 31.01.2024, set

aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and allowed the

appeal. The Union of India was directed to pay compensation of ₹8

lakhs along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

the accident, within a period of four months from the date of the

order. It was further directed that the compensation amount be

disbursed in equal proportions to the claimants-appellants, with 50%

of each claimant's share to be kept in fixed deposits for a period of

five years in their respective names in any nationalized bank.

(v) In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the Railways deposited

the awarded amount before the learned Tribunal.

(vi) Upon an application being moved for disbursement of the

compensation, the learned Tribunal, by order dated 26.04.2024,

apportioned ₹6 lakhs to appellant No. 1 and ₹2 lakhs to appellant No.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

2, and directed that the award be disbursed in accordance with the

decision of the High Court of Delhi in Geeta Devi v. Union of India1.

(vii) Subsequently, by order dated 20.05.2024, the Tribunal modified the

operative portion of the order dated 26.04.2024, directing that the

awarded amount be disbursed in equal proportions to the claimants-

appellants. However, the directions contained in the order dated

26.04.2024 regarding the mode and manner of payment remained

unaltered.

(viii) The appellants are daily wage earners who had opened individual

Savings Bank Accounts with Corporation Bank, Berhampur, which

subsequently merged with Union Bank of India in the year 2017. Since

then, both appellant No. 1 (mother) and appellant No. 2 (son) have

been residing in Berhampur and earning their livelihood there.

(ix) Aggrieved by the orders dated 26.04.2024 and 20.05.2024 passed by

the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in Misc. No.

56/2024 (arising out of O.A. No. 48/2017), the appellants have

preferred the present appeal before this Court.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants Ms. Deepali Mahapatra earnestly

made the following submissions in support of her contentions:

(i) The learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in law by imposing

conditions on the mode of disbursal of compensation, which were

never contemplated in the directions issued by this Court. The

FAO 22/2015 & CM APPLN. 4501/2015

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

impugned orders constitute a deviation from the clear and

unequivocal mandate of this Court.

(ii) This Court had directed disbursal of the full compensation amount to

the claimants without imposing any restrictions concerning the

issuance of cheque books or debit cards. The Tribunal's imposition of

such conditions is without jurisdiction, unsupported by any statutory

provision, and contrary to the directions of this Court.

(iii) The appellants had already opened a joint Savings Bank Account with

Corporation Bank, Berhampur, which later merged with Union Bank

of India. The Tribunal had no authority to direct the appellants to

open fresh individual accounts at their place of permanent residence,

especially when no such direction was issued by this Court. The said

directions are contrary to law and deserve to be set aside.

(iv) The learned Tribunal also failed to consider the undisputed fact that

both appellants have been residing and earning their livelihood in

Berhampur and had, well before the disbursal proceedings, opened a

joint bank account in that city. The directions requiring them to open

new accounts at their permanent residence are arbitrary and totally

disconnected from the factual matrix.

(v) Nowhere in the order passed by this Court was there any stipulation

requiring the appellants to open accounts at their permanent address.

Despite this, the learned Tribunal, in the impugned orders, has issued

directions that are in clear contravention of the express mandate of

this Court. The said directions are, therefore, liable to be modified.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

(vi) As per the procedure followed in claim applications, it is incumbent

upon the claimants to furnish their bank account details for receiving

compensation. Once the claim is allowed, the awarded amount is

required to be deposited in the bank account so specified by the

claimants. The Tribunal, however, acted beyond its jurisdiction in

directing the appellants to open new accounts at their permanent

place of residence. This direction is contrary to established procedure

and is legally unsustainable.

(vii) The Tribunal, being a subordinate to this Court, is duty-bound to

implement the orders of this Court faithfully and in their entirety.

Any deviation from the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court not

only undermines judicial discipline but also invites consequences

under the Contempt of Courts Act. The impugned direction requiring

the appellants to open new bank accounts near their permanent

residence is without legal sanction and, accordingly, merits

interference and modification by this Court.

III. SUBMISSIONS OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent Ms. Sulochana

Patra earnestly made the following submissions in support of her

contentions:

(i) The respondents submitted that they have not received the correct

bank account particulars from the appellants for the purpose of

releasing 50% of the awarded amount.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR:

5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after reviewing the pleadings, evidence,

and hearing arguments from both parties, made the following

findings:

(i) In its impugned order, the learned Tribunal directed that out of the

total compensation amount of ₹4,00,000/- awarded to Applicant No. 1,

the wife of the deceased, a sum of ₹2,00,000/- along with

proportionate interest be released and deposited into her individual

Savings Bank Account to be opened in any nationalized bank located

near her place of permanent residence.

(ii) The remaining ₹2,00,000/- was directed to be invested in a fixed

deposit in the same bank for a period of five years. Upon maturity, the

fixed deposit amount along with accrued interest was to be credited to

her savings account.

(iii) Similarly, in respect of Applicant No. 2, the son of the deceased,

₹2,00,000/- out of the total award of ₹4,00,000/- was directed to be

released along with proportionate interest and deposited into his

individual Savings Bank Account, also to be opened in a nationalized

bank near his permanent residence.

(iv) The balance amount of ₹2,00,000/- in favour of Applicant No. 2 was

directed to be invested as a fixed deposit in the same bank for a period

of five years. Upon maturity, the maturity amount together with

interest was to be credited to his account.

(v) The Tribunal further directed that the claimants shall open individual

accounts, and no joint names were to be permitted either in the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

Savings Bank Accounts or in the Fixed Deposit Receipts. All accounts

were to be maintained strictly in the individual names of the

respective claimants.

(vi) The concerned bank was specifically directed not to issue cheque

books and/or debit cards to the claimants. If such facilities had already

been issued, the bank was instructed to cancel them before

disbursement of the award amount. Moreover, the bank was to ensure

that no debit cards were issued from any of its branches by freezing

the accounts accordingly, and to endorse in the passbooks that no

cheque book or debit card had been issued or would be issued

without prior permission of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

(vii) Withdrawals from the accounts were to be made only through

withdrawal forms, and only upon production of an order from the

Tribunal. The bank was directed to make appropriate endorsements

to this effect in the claimants' passbooks.

(viii) The original Fixed Deposits were to be retained by the bank in safe

custody. The bank, however, was to furnish the claimants with a

statement specifying the FDR number, amount, date of maturity, and

the maturity amount. Monthly interest from the FDRs was to be

credited to the respective savings accounts through ECS, and the

maturity amount was also to be transferred via ECS. The bank was

prohibited from granting any loan, advance, withdrawal, or

permitting premature encashment of the FDRs without prior approval

of the Tribunal.

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

V. THIS COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

6. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the

documents placed before this Court.

7. The primary issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is

whether the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, erred by

directing the appellants to open fresh individual bank accounts at

their place of permanent residence and imposing conditions not

expressly directed by this Court in its order dated 31.01.2024.

8. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Tribunal relied upon the

decision of the Delhi High Court in Geeta Devi(supra), which laid

down detailed guidelines regarding the disbursement of

compensation under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents

(Compensation) Rules, 1990. These guidelines eventually culminated

in the insertion of Rule 5, which was implemented with effect from 1st

January, 2020, conferring upon the Tribunal the discretion to prescribe

the mode of disbursal in appropriate cases, particularly where the

claimants are found to be vulnerable due to illiteracy, lack of financial

awareness, or other disabling factors that may impair the judicious

use of the awarded sum.Rule 5 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready

reference:

"5. Mode of Payment.--

5.1 The Tribunal may, in order to protect the sum awarded to the claimant, having due regard to the illiteracy or other disabling factors impairing the judicious use of such sum, issue directions for disbursing the award in terms of

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

annuities, fixed deposits or other suitable mode as shall subserve justice.

5.2 If any of the claimants is a minor or person of unsound mind, the Tribunal may give liberty to the guardian ad litem to use the interest accruals on the deposit that shall be made during the minority for maintenance.

5.3 Nothing in this rule shall limit the power of the Tribunal to make modifications of the mode of disbursal for reasons to be stated in writing depending on the exigencies requiring liquidation of any corpus created for annuity or premature closure of fixed deposit, for the benefit of the claimant.

5.4 The orders dated 21st April, 2017, 24th May, 2019 and 6th November, 2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 22/2015 and CM Application No. 4501/2015 in Geeta Devi v. Union of India, relating to disbursement of compensation shall be read as part of this rule."

9. A plain reading of Rule 5 makes it evident that the discretion

conferred upon the Tribunal is not absolute. The purpose of Rule 5 is

to provide protection where required. Its application must be guided

by necessity, not convenience.

10. In the present case, both the appellants are daily wage earners with

limited financial means. The Tribunal, upon taking note of their socio-

economic background especially their non-banking habits, constraints

etc. and with the objective of safeguarding the compensation

awarded, exercised its discretion under Rule 5 in prescribing the

mode and manner of disbursal to the detriment of the Appellants.

Such directions are not in consonance with the spirit and object of the

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

amendment, aimed at insulating vulnerable claimants from potential

financial mismanagement or exploitation. The illiteracy and limited

mobility of the Appellants due to their nature of job further

compounds their woes if they are to open a bank Account once again.

11. It is also relevant to note that the Tribunal's direction requiring the

appellants to open individual bank accounts near their place of

permanent residence, and prohibiting the issuance of cheque books or

debit cards, sounds to be a protective measure anchored in the

framework laid down by the Delhi High Court in Geeta Devi (supra),

which now forms an integral part of Rule 5(4) of the Railway

Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. But,

considering their conditions, it is not necessary to put them an extra

burden of moving to a place for opening new Bank Account since they

already have a Bank Account.

12. Upon examination of the material on record, this Court is of the

considered view that the Appellants have rightly demonstrated their

material hardship or prejudice arising from these directions that

would warrant interference by this Court especially with respect to

the place of opening the Bank Account.

13. The submission that the Tribunal's orders are inconsistent with this

Court's direction dated 31.01.2024 is not entirely correct. While this

Court directed disbursal of the awarded amount, it did not preclude

the Tribunal from implementing those directions in accordance with

the applicable statutory framework. The Tribunal has acted well

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK

within its jurisdiction, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Railway

Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 but

the Tribunal should also realize the inconveniences of the claimants.

14. Viewed in the aforesaid context, the impugned directions suffer some

infirmity. Though the directions issued are aligned with the well-

settled objective of social welfare jurisprudence that constitutes the

basis of compensatory proceedings under the Railway Claims

Tribunal Act but the Tribunal should have realized the inhibiting

factors of social, educational and economic constraints of the

claimants.

VI. CONCLUSION:

15. In light of the above discussion, orders dated 26.04.2024 and

20.05.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal,

Bhubaneswar Bench in Misc. No. 56/2024 (arising out of OA

No.48/2017) cannot be sustained. The same are set aside.

16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of being allowed.

17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 25th April, 2025/