Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-May-2026 17:32:04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.371 of 2026 (From the judgment dated 21^st November, 2025 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in Case No. O.A.

(IIU)/57/2025)

Pushpa Patel and Others …. Appellants -versus-

Union of India, represented through its General Manager, East Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar …. Respondent Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Appellants : Mr. Satyaban Sahoo, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Sr. Panel Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

8th May, 2026 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Sahoo, learned counsel for the claimant – Appellants and Mr. S.S. Kashyap, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India.

2. Present appeal by the Claimants is directed against impugned judgment / award dated 21^st November, 2025 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in Case No. O.A. (IIU)/57/2025.

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 Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-May-2026 17:32:04 adducing of Applicant’s Evidence (AE), i.e. 7^th August 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 Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-May-2026 17:32:04 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 reaso