The relevant date for determining compensation under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is the date of the award, not the date of the incident, ensuring claimants receive fair compensation.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Malityar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present civil review petition is barred by the limitation of 876 days.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that I.A. No.916 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 876 days in preferring the present civil review petition.

4. This civil review petition has been filed to review the judgment and order dated 08.03.2021 and 24.05.2021 passed in M.A. No.197 of 2018 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, whereby, the respondents/claimants were awarded a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim application till the date of indemnifying the award.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Coordinate Bench relying on the judgment passed in the case of Union of India v. Radha Yadav , reported in (2019) 3 SCC 410 disposed of the said M.A. with direction to the Railway to pay award of Rs.8 Lakhs along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of indemnifying the award to the claimants. He submits that the award should be Rs.4 Lakhs as the incident took place before the amendment in the year 2017 and by the amendment of 2017, Rule of 1990 was modified enhancing the awarded amount from Rs.4 Lakhs to Rs.8 Lakhs. He submits that at the time when accident took place, the awarded amount should be Rs.4 Lakhs as per the existing Rule 1990, whereas, the claimants are awarded Rs.8 Lakhs and in view of that, the award of Rs.4 Lakhs was required to be issued, however, the award of Rs.8 Lakhs was issued, which is not correct and, therefore, that part of the order may kindly be modified and the awarded amount may be slashed to Rs.4 Lakhs. He further submits that the judgment passed in the case of Radha Yadav (supra) was decided following the judgment passed in the case of Union of India v. Rina Devi , reported in (2019) 3 SCC 572 . He submits that in view of the direction given in the case of Rina Devi (supra), the judgment and order passed in the said M.A. may kindly be modified to that effect. According to him, in above two judgments it has been held that if the amount calculated less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award, the claimant would be entitled for higher amount. On these grounds, he submits that the judgment and order dated 08.03.2021 and 24.05.2021 passed in the said M.A. may kindly be modified.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submits that the learned Coordinate Bench has rightly passed the order and it is within the spirit of Railway Claims Tribunal Act , 1987 and that is the welfare legislation and in view of that the interpretation on the aforesaid two judgments, on which, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been correctly interpreted by the Coordinate Bench while passing the said judgment. On these grounds, he submits that there is nothing to decide in this petition as there is no error apparent on the record.

7. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 08.03.2021 has been pleased to direct the Railways to pay a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of indemnifying the award and that direction has been issued based on the aforesaid two judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants, who are respondents herein and they have preferred M.A. No.197 of 2018 before this Court and challenged the said order passed by the Tribunal and pursuant to that the said M.A. was decided and that was based on untoward incident.

8. In light of Section 124-A of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act , 1987, it has to be understood as to mean “as may be prescribed f