Orissa High Court
(An Appeal Under Section 23 Of The ... vs The General Manager on 17 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No. 205 of 2025
(An appeal under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act,
1987.)
Sanjay Kumar Padhi & Anr. .... Appellant (s)
-versus-
The General Manager, South East .... Respondent (s)
Central Railway, Bilaspur,
Chhatisgarh
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Ramanath Acharya, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-01.09.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.10.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Appellant, in the present appeal is challenging the order dated
04.04.2025 passed in O.A. No.80 of 2012 by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 18.06.2011, the deceased, Sunil Kumar Padhi, purchased a ticket
at Kharagpur Railway Station for travel from Kharagpur to Bombay
and boarded the Gitanjali Express. While the train was near
Khaparikala village railway station, at Pole No. 908, the deceased fell
from the train and died on the spot.
(ii) The accident was reported to the GRPS Police, and a case was
registered at Khaparikala Railway Police Station vide U/D Case No.
47/11.
(iii) The Appellants filed a claim petition before the learned Railway
Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, on 07.06.2012, claiming
compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal dismissed the
claim on 03.03.2017, holding it to be devoid of merit
(iv) The Appellants challenged the order dated 03.03.2017 before this
Court in F.A.O. No. 161 of 2017.
(v) By order dated 24.07.2024, this Court remitted the matter to the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, for fresh adjudication of the
claim petition.
(vi) The Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, by its judgment
dated 04.04.2025 in O.A. No. 80 of 2012, allowed the application and
awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the Appellants. The
Tribunal directed that 10% of the awarded amount, along with
proportionate interest, be released immediately, and the balance be
deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipts in a Nationalized Bank for three
years.
(vii) The Appellants have filed the present appeal against the Tribunal's
award.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The impugned judgment dated 04.04.2025 is illegal and contrary to
law, being against the weight of evidence. The Tribunal erred in not
directing interest on the awarded amount from the date of the
accident, i.e., 19.06.2011, despite established principles that
compensation amounts ought to carry interest.
(ii) The accident occurred at approximately 4:45 AM on 19.06.2011 due
to the negligent operation of the Gitanjali Express, as borne out by the
evidence recorded in U.D. Case No. 47 of 2011. The Tribunal,
however, failed to adequately consider this material evidence and
overlooked settled legal principles.
(iii) The cause of action arose in June 2011, and the litigation extended
over nearly fourteen years, during which the Appellants incurred
substantial expenses and endured significant hardships. In such
circumstances, they are entitled to interest on the awarded amount as
just compensation for the delay.
(iv) The Appellants have no independent source of income, with
Appellant No. 1 earning only a modest sum from performing Seva
Puja, insufficient to meet basic obligations. Modification of the award
to include interest would enable them to discharge debts and meet
essential living expenses.
(v) The Tribunal's direction to release only 10% of the awarded amount
for immediate use is inadequate. The proportion of the award
available for immediate withdrawal may be enhanced to 25% to
enable repayment of outstanding liabilities.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The present appeal is not maintainable. The incident occurred on
18.06.2011, when the provision for compensation for death under the
Railways Act was ₹4,00,000/-. The claim petition filed on 07.06.2012
sought ₹5,00,000/- and was dismissed on 03.03.2017 as devoid of
merit.
(ii) The Appellants challenged that order before this Court in F.A.O. No.
161 of 2017, following which the matter was remitted to the Railway
Claims Tribunal for fresh adjudication. After considering the legal
position, the Tribunal awarded ₹8,00,000/- without interest. The
enhanced provision of ₹8,00,000/- in cases of death came into force
only from 01.01.2017. Since the claim relates to the date of the
accident, i.e., 18.06.2011, the Appellants were originally entitled to
only ₹4,00,000/-. The award of ₹8,00,000/- without interest is therefore
just and proper.
(iii) In compliance with the judgment dated 04.04.2025, the awarded
amount of ₹8,00,000/- has already been deposited before the Tribunal
on 23.05.2025. The appeal is therefore not maintainable and is liable
to be dismissed.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR:
5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after hearing the parties, perusing the
material on record, and considering the directions of this Court, made
the following findings:
(i) The deceased, Sunil Kumar Padhi, was traveling by Gitanjali Express
from Kharagpur to Bombay on 18.06.2011. Due to a sudden jerk of
the train, he fell near Khaparikala Village Railway Station and died
on the spot.
(ii) AW 1, the mother of the deceased, and AW 2, a retired railway
personnel, deposed that the deceased had purchased a valid ticket
and boarded the train in their presence, establishing him as a bona
fide passenger.
(iii) The Respondent's claim that the deceased's death was due to self-
inflicted negligence is unsubstantiated. No direct evidence supports
any contention of criminal negligence or suicidal intent.
(iv) The post-mortem and inquest reports confirm that the death resulted
from injuries sustained due to falling from the train, constituting an
"untoward incident" within the meaning of Section 123(c)(2) of the
Railways Act, 1989.
(v) The Applicants, being the parents of the unmarried deceased, are
recognized as the sole dependents under Section 123(b) of the
Railways Act, 1989, and are entitled to compensation under Section
124-A.
(vi) In view of the Railway Board notification dated 22.12.2016, effective
from 01.01.2017, the Tribunal awarded ₹8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight
Lakhs) to the Applicants, an amount higher than that applicable on
the date of the accident.
(vii) The award was structured with safeguards, with ₹4,00,000/- each to
the father and mother, an initial withdrawal limited to 10%, and the
balance placed in fixed deposits for three years. Interest was to be
credited quarterly, with strict restrictions on account operation to
prevent misuse, in accordance with the Railway Board notification
dated 03.06.2020.
(viii) The Tribunal concluded that the claim is maintainable, the deceased
was a bona fide passenger, the death was accidental, and the
Applicants are entitled to the awarded compensation.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties,
perused the material on record, and examined the impugned order of
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench.
7. The present appeal is confined to a limited question, namely whether
the directions of the Tribunal regarding the mode of disbursement of
the awarded compensation, particularly the absence of any additional
interest on the awarded amount and the restriction of immediate
withdrawal to ten percent of the award, require modification in favor of
the Appellants to increase immediate withdrawal to twenty-five
percent and for payment of additional interest.
8. The Tribunal, after consideration of the evidence, documentation, and
statutory provisions, awarded compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the
Applicants for the death of their son, Sunil Kumar Padhi, arising out of
an untoward incident while traveling as a bona fide passenger in Train
No. 12860, Geetanjali Express.
9. In structuring the disbursement, the Tribunal relied upon Rule 5 of the
Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)
Amendment Rules, 2020, which specifically empowers it to determine
the mode of disbursal, including deposit in fixed deposits. Such
measures are intended to safeguard claimants against potential
exploitation by unscrupulous intermediaries and to ensure that the
award serves its protective and compensatory purpose effectively.
10. The Tribunal also took into consideration the observations of the Delhi
High Court in Geeta Devi v. Union of India1, which recognize that
claimants, particularly from rural areas, may not possess sufficient
financial literacy or judgment to manage large sums of money
immediately, and that unrestricted access could expose them to undue
risk.
11. The Tribunal's approach, allowing only ten percent of the award for
immediate withdrawal and placing the balance in fixed deposits for
three years with interest credited quarterly, was neither arbitrary nor
unduly restrictive. Additional safeguards, including prohibitions on
issuing cheque books or debit cards and requirements for formal
applications for withdrawals, were incorporated to prevent imprudent
or unauthorized access while still permitting the claimants to meet
immediate needs.
2019 SCC OnLine Del 8919.
12. The Appellants' request to increase immediate withdrawal to twenty-
five percent does not justify interference. The Tribunal's structured
disbursal takes into account the claimants' immediate requirements and
future financial security while promoting financial prudence and
protection against mismanagement or undue pressure, particularly for
individuals from rural or vulnerable backgrounds. Limiting immediate
access to ten percent and securing the remainder in fixed deposits with
strict procedural safeguards reflects a careful exercise of discretion,
ensuring that the compensation fulfils its protective and compensatory
purpose over the long term. No error of law or abuse of discretion is
apparent that would warrant judicial intervention in this considered
exercise of judgment.
13. Regarding the request for additional interest on the awarded amount,
the Tribunal's order already provides for interest at the rate of 9% per
annum in the event of delayed payment by the Respondent. In the
present case, the Respondent has already deposited the awarded
amount in accordance with the Tribunal's directions. The Appellants
have therefore failed to establish any statutory or equitable basis for
claiming further interest. The Tribunal acted well within its jurisdiction
under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, ensuring that the
compensation was preserved, protected, and made reasonably
accessible to the claimants without delay.
VI. CONCLUSION:
14. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal's directions regarding disbursal,
namely ten percent immediate withdrawal and placement of the
balance in fixed deposits with appropriate safeguards, are rational, fair,
and fully consistent with statutory provisions and judicial precedent.
15. The Appellants have failed to demonstrate any error of law or exercise
of discretion in the Tribunal's order warranting interference.
Modification in the manner sought would undermine the protective
framework envisaged by law and go against the considered reasoning
of the Tribunal, which sought to balance immediate access with long-
term financial security.
16. For these reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
17. The impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No.80 of 2012 shall remain in
force and effect, and no modification is warranted in the mode of
disbursal or interest provisions.
18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th October, 2025/
