[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Mandodari Sethy And Others vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2026
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 12-Feb-2026 17:49:40
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.55 of 2026
(From the judgment dated 19th September, 2025 passed by the learned
Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in OA (IIU)/13/2025)
Mandodari Sethy and Others .... Appellants
-versus-
Union of India, represented through
the General Manager, South Central .... Respondent
Railway, Secunderabad
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. B.S. Rayguru, Sr. Panel Counsel
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
th
11 February 2026
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants -
Appellants and Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, learned Senior Panel Counsel for
Union of India.
2. Present appeal by the Claimants is directed against impugned
judgment dated 19th September, 2025 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in O.A. No.(IIU)/13/2025.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the Tribunal while
granting interest has directed for payment of interest from the date of
appearance of the Applicant's Evidence (AE), i.e. 15th July 2025 till the
date of actual payment.
4. In Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 2019 (3) SCC 572, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"18. The learned Amicus has referred to judgments of this
Court in Raman Iron Foundry [Union of India v. Raman Iron
Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231, para 11] and Kesoram
Industries [Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT,
(1966) 2 SCR 688, para 33 : AIR 1966 SC 1370] 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 [Kesoram Industries and Cotton
Mills Ltd. v. CWT, (1966) 2 SCR 688, para 33 : AIR 1966 SC
1370] , 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 [Thazhathe Purayil
Sarabi v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 372 : (2009) 3 SCC
(Civ) 133 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 408 : 2010 TAC 420] that in the
present context right to compensation arises on the date of the
accident. In Raman Iron Foundry [Union of India v. Raman
Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231, para 11] , 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 [Rathi
Menon v. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714, para 30 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 1311] 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 the
Workmen Compensation Act can certainly be applied and
judgment of the four-Judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh
Deo [Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1
SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52] 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 beneficent legislation. [Union of
India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, (2008) 9 SCC 527, para
12]
19. 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 [Rathi
Menon v. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714, para 30 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 1311] and Kalandi Charan Sahoo [Kalandi Charan
Sahoo v. South-East Central Railways, (2019) 12 SCC 387 :
2017 SCC OnLine SC 1638] stands explained accordingly. The
four-Judge Bench judgment in Pratap Narain Singh
Deo [Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1
SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52] 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."
5. From the aforesaid ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it
is thus grossly illegal to award interest after any subsequent date than
from the date of accident. As such, the impugned award stands modified
to that extent and the Respondent is directed to pay interest on the award
amount from 21st November, 2024, i.e. the date of accident.
6. Accordingly, present appeal is disposed of with a direction to the
Respondent - Union of India to deposit the compensation amount
including interest, payable from the date of accident, i.e. 21st November,
2024, in favour of the claimant - Appellants, namely Mandodari Sethy,
Subrat Sethy, Soumya Sethy, Abhi Sethi and Manas Sethi without further
delay.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
M.K. Panda, P.A.
