The Tribunal's structured disbursement of compensation under the Railways Act ensures claimant protection and financial prudence, with no legal basis for additional interest or increased immediate withdrawal.

JUDGMENT :

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 AC