Nibedita Rout v. Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

FAO No. 155 of 2020 Nibedita Rout & Others ....

Appellants -versusUnion of India ....

Respondent

CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

29.06.2022 Order No.

3.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2.

This appeal is filed by the Claimants, who are the wife, daughter, father, mother and sister of deceased Sangram Rout, under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act, 1987') being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 9th December, 2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar (for short, 'the learned Tribunal') in OA No.04 of 2017 assailing the mode of payment of compensation amount.

// 2 // 3.

At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submit that the legal issue involved in this appeal is similar to FAO Nos.262 of 2020 and batch of appeals disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 9th September, 2021 and the present Appeal may be disposed of in the light of the said judgment.

4.

Ms. J.Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel for the Railways-Respondent, however, submits that although the facts and law involved in this case is similar, but Claimant should approach learned Tribunal by filing appropriate application for variation in the condition and mode of payment of the compensation amount. In that event, learned Tribunal will be in a position to pass necessary orders on their application.

5.

Mr. D. Mund, learned counsel for the Appellants submits that since Railways could not produce any material before the learned Tribunal to justify restriction in disbursement of compensation, remittance of the matter to learned Tribunal will be an empty formality only, and thereby the claimant(s) will be highly prejudiced. Even though Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the Appellants argued that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this

// 3 // Court rendered in FAO No.262 of 2020, but in the present case appellant No.2 (applicant No.2) is a minor at the time of filing of the claim application and she continues to be a minor. Therefore, the ratio decided by this Court in the aforesaid FAO No.262 of 2020 cannot be applied in toto to the facts of the present case. In view of the insertion of Rule-5 by virtue of the amendment, which came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2020 to the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident, (Compensation Rules), 1990, learned Tribunal has rightly directed to deposit the share of the appellant No.2 (applicant No.2) in FDR and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. But since the appellant Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 are major, learned Tribunal should not have directed to deposit the major portion of the share in FDR.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the grounds raised in this appeal vis-à-vis the decision passed by this Court in FAO No.262 of 2020, this Court feels it proper to direct the learned Tribunal to disburse the entire share of appellant Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 on proper identification, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of an application along with certified copy of this order following due procedure of law.

// 4 // The Claimant(s)/Appellant(s) is/are directed to submit his/her (their) A/c details of any nationalized bank as per the requirement along with the application form for disbursal of the compensation amount, as aforesaid.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat