Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No. 244 of 2024 (From the orders dated 26.04.2024 and 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in Misc. No. 56/2024 (arising out of OA No.48/2017) Dugana Lakshmi & Anr. …. Appellant(s) -versus- Union of India …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Appellant (s) For Respondent (s) : : Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Adv. Ms. Sulochana Patra, CGC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-07.04.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-25.04.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In the present appeal, the Appellants are assailing the orders dated 26.04.2024 and 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims
Facts
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in Misc. No. 56/2024 (arising out of OA No.48/2017), whereby they have been directed to open individual Savings Bank Accounts in a nationalized bank located near their place of permanent residence. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 (i) The appellants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, Dugana Samba Murthy, who tragically lost his life in a railway accident while traveling as a bona fide passenger faced an untoward incident, filed a claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. They sought compensation to the tune of ₹8 lakhs for the death of the deceased, and the claim was registered as O.A. No. 48 of 2017. (ii) The said claim application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.01.2020. (iii) Aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim, the appellants preferred an appeal bearing F.A.O. No. 315 of 2020. (iv) This Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 31.01.2024, set aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal and allowed the appeal. The Union of India was directed to pay compensation of ₹8 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the accident, within a period of four months from the date of the order. It was further directed that the compensation amount be disbursed in equal proportions to the claimants-appellants, with 50% of each claimant’s share to be kept in fixed deposits for a period of five years in their respective names in any nationalized bank. (v) In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the Railways deposited the awarded amount before the learned Tribunal. (vi) Upon an application being moved for disbursement of the compensation, the learned Tribunal, by order dated 26.04.2024, apportioned ₹6 lakhs to appellant No. 1 and ₹2 lakhs to appellant No. Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 2, and directed that the award be disbursed in accordance with the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Geeta Devi v. Union of India1. (vii) Subsequently, by order dated 20.05.2024, the Tribunal modified the operative portion of the order dated 26.04.2024, directing that the awarded amount be disbursed in equal proportions to the claimants- appellants. However, the directions contained in the order dated 26.04.2024 regarding the mode and manner of payment remained unaltered. (viii) The appellants are daily wage earners who had opened individual Savings Bank Accounts with Corporation Bank, Berhampur, which subsequently merged with Union Bank of India in the year 2017. Since then, both appellant No. 1 (mother) and appellant No. 2 (son) have been residing in Berhampur and earning their livelihood there. (ix) Aggrieved by the orders dated 26.04.2024 and 20.05.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, in Misc. No. 56/2024 (arising out of O.A. No. 48/2017), the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
Legal Reasoning
expressly directed by this Court in its order dated 31.01.2024. 8. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Geeta Devi(supra), which laid down detailed guidelines regarding the disbursement of compensation under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. These guidelines eventually culminated in the insertion of Rule 5, which was implemented with effect from 1st January, 2020, conferring upon the Tribunal the discretion to prescribe the mode of disbursal in appropriate cases, particularly where the claimants are found to be vulnerable due to illiteracy, lack of financial awareness, or other disabling factors that may impair the judicious use of the awarded sum.Rule 5 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “5. Mode of Payment.— 5.1 The Tribunal may, in order to protect the sum awarded to the claimant, having due regard to the illiteracy or other disabling factors impairing the judicious use of such sum, issue directions for disbursing the award in terms of Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 annuities, fixed deposits or other suitable mode as shall subserve justice. 5.2 If any of the claimants is a minor or person of unsound mind, the Tribunal may give liberty to the guardian ad litem to use the interest accruals on the deposit that shall be made during the minority for maintenance. 5.3 Nothing in this rule shall limit the power of the Tribunal to make modifications of the mode of disbursal for reasons to be stated in writing depending on the exigencies requiring liquidation of any corpus created for annuity or premature closure of fixed deposit, for the benefit of the claimant. 5.4 The orders dated 21st April, 2017, 24th May, 2019 and 6th November, 2019 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No. 22/2015 and CM Application No. 4501/2015 in Geeta Devi v. Union of India, relating to disbursement of compensation shall be read as part of this rule.” 9. A plain reading of Rule 5 makes it evident that the discretion conferred upon the Tribunal is not absolute. The purpose of Rule 5 is to provide protection where required. Its application must be guided by necessity, not convenience. 10. In the present case, both the appellants are daily wage earners with limited financial means. The Tribunal, upon taking note of their socio- economic background especially their non-banking habits, constraints etc. and with the objective of safeguarding the compensation awarded, exercised its discretion under Rule 5 in prescribing the mode and manner of disbursal to the detriment of the Appellants. Such directions are not in consonance with the spirit and object of the Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 amendment, aimed at insulating vulnerable claimants from potential financial mismanagement or exploitation. The illiteracy and limited mobility of the Appellants due to their nature of job further compounds their woes if they are to open a bank Account once again. 11. It is also relevant to note that the Tribunal’s direction requiring the appellants to open individual bank accounts near their place of permanent residence, and prohibiting the issuance of cheque books or debit cards, sounds to be a protective measure anchored in the framework laid down by the Delhi High Court in Geeta Devi (supra), which now forms an integral part of Rule 5(4) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. But, considering their conditions, it is not necessary to put them an extra burden of moving to a place for opening new Bank Account since they already have a Bank Account. 12. Upon examination of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellants have rightly demonstrated their material hardship or prejudice arising from these directions that would warrant interference by this Court especially with respect to the place of opening the Bank Account. 13. The submission that the Tribunal’s orders are inconsistent with this Court’s direction dated 31.01.2024 is not entirely correct. While this Court directed disbursal of the awarded amount, it did not preclude the Tribunal from implementing those directions in accordance with the applicable statutory framework. The Tribunal has acted well Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 within its jurisdiction, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 but the Tribunal should also realize the inconveniences of the claimants. 14. Viewed in the aforesaid context, the impugned directions suffer some infirmity. Though the directions issued are aligned with the well- settled objective of social welfare jurisprudence that constitutes the basis of compensatory proceedings under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act but the Tribunal should have realized the inhibiting factors of social, educational and economic constraints of the claimants. VI. CONCLUSION: 15. In light of the above discussion, orders dated 26.04.2024 and 20.05.2024 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench in Misc. No. 56/2024 (arising out of OA No.48/2017) cannot be sustained. The same are set aside.
Arguments
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants Ms. Deepali Mahapatra earnestly made the following submissions in support of her contentions: (i) The learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in law by imposing conditions on the mode of disbursal of compensation, which were never contemplated in the directions issued by this Court. The 1FAO 22/2015 & CM APPLN. 4501/2015 Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 impugned orders constitute a deviation from the clear and unequivocal mandate of this Court. (ii) This Court had directed disbursal of the full compensation amount to the claimants without imposing any restrictions concerning the issuance of cheque books or debit cards. The Tribunal’s imposition of such conditions is without jurisdiction, unsupported by any statutory provision, and contrary to the directions of this Court. (iii) The appellants had already opened a joint Savings Bank Account with Corporation Bank, Berhampur, which later merged with Union Bank of India. The Tribunal had no authority to direct the appellants to open fresh individual accounts at their place of permanent residence, especially when no such direction was issued by this Court. The said directions are contrary to law and deserve to be set aside. (iv) The learned Tribunal also failed to consider the undisputed fact that both appellants have been residing and earning their livelihood in Berhampur and had, well before the disbursal proceedings, opened a joint bank account in that city. The directions requiring them to open new accounts at their permanent residence are arbitrary and totally disconnected from the factual matrix. (v) Nowhere in the order passed by this Court was there any stipulation requiring the appellants to open accounts at their permanent address. Despite this, the learned Tribunal, in the impugned orders, has issued directions that are in clear contravention of the express mandate of this Court. The said directions are, therefore, liable to be modified. Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 (vi) As per the procedure followed in claim applications, it is incumbent upon the claimants to furnish their bank account details for receiving compensation. Once the claim is allowed, the awarded amount is required to be deposited in the bank account so specified by the claimants. The Tribunal, however, acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing the appellants to open new accounts at their permanent place of residence. This direction is contrary to established procedure and is legally unsustainable. (vii) The Tribunal, being a subordinate to this Court, is duty-bound to implement the orders of this Court faithfully and in their entirety. Any deviation from the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court not only undermines judicial discipline but also invites consequences under the Contempt of Courts Act. The impugned direction requiring the appellants to open new bank accounts near their permanent residence is without legal sanction and, accordingly, merits interference and modification by this Court. III. SUBMISSIONS OF BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent Ms. Sulochana Patra earnestly made the following submissions in support of her contentions: (i) The respondents submitted that they have not received the correct bank account particulars from the appellants for the purpose of releasing 50% of the awarded amount. Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 IV. FINDINGS OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BHUBANESWAR: 5. The Railway Claims Tribunal, after reviewing the pleadings, evidence, and hearing arguments from both parties, made the following findings: (i) In its impugned order, the learned Tribunal directed that out of the total compensation amount of ₹4,00,000/- awarded to Applicant No. 1, the wife of the deceased, a sum of ₹2,00,000/- along with proportionate interest be released and deposited into her individual Savings Bank Account to be opened in any nationalized bank located near her place of permanent residence. (ii) The remaining ₹2,00,000/- was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit in the same bank for a period of five years. Upon maturity, the fixed deposit amount along with accrued interest was to be credited to her savings account. (iii) Similarly, in respect of Applicant No. 2, the son of the deceased, ₹2,00,000/- out of the total award of ₹4,00,000/- was directed to be released along with proportionate interest and deposited into his individual Savings Bank Account, also to be opened in a nationalized bank near his permanent residence. (iv) The balance amount of ₹2,00,000/- in favour of Applicant No. 2 was directed to be invested as a fixed deposit in the same bank for a period of five years. Upon maturity, the maturity amount together with interest was to be credited to his account. (v) The Tribunal further directed that the claimants shall open individual accounts, and no joint names were to be permitted either in the Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 Savings Bank Accounts or in the Fixed Deposit Receipts. All accounts were to be maintained strictly in the individual names of the respective claimants. (vi) The concerned bank was specifically directed not to issue cheque books and/or debit cards to the claimants. If such facilities had already been issued, the bank was instructed to cancel them before disbursement of the award amount. Moreover, the bank was to ensure that no debit cards were issued from any of its branches by freezing the accounts accordingly, and to endorse in the passbooks that no cheque book or debit card had been issued or would be issued without prior permission of the Railway Claims Tribunal. (vii) Withdrawals from the accounts were to be made only through withdrawal forms, and only upon production of an order from the Tribunal. The bank was directed to make appropriate endorsements to this effect in the claimants’ passbooks. (viii) The original Fixed Deposits were to be retained by the bank in safe custody. The bank, however, was to furnish the claimants with a statement specifying the FDR number, amount, date of maturity, and the maturity amount. Monthly interest from the FDRs was to be credited to the respective savings accounts through ECS, and the maturity amount was also to be transferred via ECS. The bank was prohibited from granting any loan, advance, withdrawal, or permitting premature encashment of the FDRs without prior approval of the Tribunal. Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-May-2025 19:35:07 V. THIS COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. Heard the Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 7. The primary issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, erred by directing the appellants to open fresh individual bank accounts at their place of permanent residence and imposing conditions not
Decision
16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of being allowed. 17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 25th April, 2025/ (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Page 11 of 11