# Amrendra Bahadur Singh & Anr v. U.O.I

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 24
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-11
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 44 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amrendra-bahadur-singh-anr-v-u-o-i-53117
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Vijay Pratap Singh, Amit Sharma, Harsha
Yadav

Railway Claims - Railway Accidents and
Untoward
Incidents
(Compensation)
Rules, 1990 -Compensation - Interest -
Applicability of Rina Devi principle -
Compensation determined under amended
rules higher than calculated amount with
interest under earlier rules - Tribunal
rightly awarded compensation as per
higher amount under new rules - Interest
granted from date of award, not from date
of accident - Held, as per U.O.I. v. Rina
Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, interest on
compensation is payable only on the
amount accruing as per comparative
calculation - No error in Tribunal's
computation - Request for lump sum
disbursal
without
pleading
or
cause
rejected
- Appeal misconceived and
dismissed. (Paras 7,8, and 10)
HELD:
The alleged untoward incident happened on
15.06.2015, in regard to which the claim
petition was filed before the Railway Claims
Tribunal, which has been allowed by means of
impugned
judgement
and
award
dated
18.10.2019 passed in Case No.OA/II/U/995/15
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow. The amount of compensation of Rs.4
lakhs at the time of accident was enhanced to
Rs.8 lakhs by means of the amendment in Part-I
of the Schedule of the Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990
vide G.S.R. 1165 (E) dated 22.12.2016. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of U.O.I. Vs
Rina Devi (supra) has concluded that the
compensation will be payable as applicable on
the date of the accident with interest as may be
considered reasonable from time to time on the
same pattern as in accident claim cases and if
the amount so calculated is less than the
amount prescribed as on the date of the award
of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled for
higher of the two amounts.... (para 7)
In view of above, the compensation is to be
calculated on the date of award considering the
compensation applicable on the date of accident
and interest thereon as may be considered
reasonable from time to time and after
calculating the compensation applicable on the
date of accident with the interest thereon up to
the date of award and on comparing the same
with the present applicable compensation,
whichever is higher, the same would be the
amount of compensation on the date of award,
for which the claimant is entitled. Once the
amount of compensation is to be determined in
view of paragraph 15.4 of the aforesaid
judgement of U.O.I. Vs Rina Devi (supra) on the
date of award, the submission of learned
counsel for the appellants that on the so
determined
amount of compensation, the
interest should have been awarded from the
date of accident, is misconceived and is not
tenable because once the said amount of
compensation accrues on the date of award
after calculating as per procedure provided in
the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
interest can be awarded only for the subsequent
period from the date it accrues as the interest
can not be awarded for the period prior to the
date on which it accrues. (Para 8)

So far as the judgement relied by learned
counsel for the appellants, in the case of Anju &
ors. versus U.O.I. & ors.connected revisions
(supra), is concerned, the appellants have not
taken any ground in appeal and shown that the
appellant is in need of the whole money
together. It is also to be noted that despite
repeated asking to learned counsel for the
appellant by the Court that if required, he may
move
an
affidavit
and
application
for
amendment, which may be considered, learned
counsel for the appellants declined to do so and
insisted for disposal of appeal today itself. Thus
the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants is misconceived and not tenable.
(Para 10)

Appeal dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
39. In view of aforesaid Rule 10(2)
of C.P.C. proceedings and report of the
commissioner and the evidence taken by him
with the report shall be evidence in the suit
and shall form part of the record. However,
the Court or, with the permission of the
Court, any of the parties to the suit may
examine the Commissioner personally in
open Court touching any of the matters
referred to him or mentioned in his report, or
as to his report, or as to the manner in which
he has made the investigation. As per Sub
Rule (3) of Rule 10, if the Court is for any
reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of
the Commissioner, it may direct such further
inquiry to be made as it thinks fit, therefore,
in case the court has any doubt on the report
and
evidence
taken
by
him
during
commission, the Commissioner may be
examined in person and thereafter if the court
is of the view that any further inquiry is
required it may direct for the same.

40. Adverting to the facts of the
present case, admittedly the commission
report is on record, but no objection to the
same has been filed by the defendantrespondents and no finding has been recorded
by the trial court that it is not satisfied with
the
proceedings
and
the
report
of
commissioner, therefore, it stands final and if
it has not been considered by the trial court
and the lower appellate court was of the view
that it was required to be considered, it could
have considered the same and upon
considering it an independent finding could
have been recorded and after it if the
appellate court was of the view that the
matter is required to be remanded, it could
have remanded recording specific findings as
remand on technical ground without affecting
merit is not tenable

41. In view of above and considering
overall facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the view that the lower
appellate court has set aside the impugned
Judgment and decree passed by the trial court
and remanded the matter without dealing
with the case as an appellate court under
Section 96 of C.P.C. and exercising the
powers under Section 107 of C.P.C. read
with Order-41, Rules-23, 23-A and 25 and
passing judgment without complying with
the provision of under Order 41 Rule 31 of
C.P.C., therefore, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the lower appellate
court is liable to be set aside and the matter
is liable to be remanded to the lower
appellate court to consider and decide the
appeal afresh in accordance with law and the
observations made herein-above in this
order.

42. The appeal is allowed. The
impugned
Judgment
and
order
dated
04.01.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.110 of
2011; Hari Bux Singh and others versus
Prakash Narain and others by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1,
Sultanpur is hereby set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the lower appellate court to
consider and decide the civil appeal afresh in
accordance with law and observations made
here-in-above in this order. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 24
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 44 of 2021

Amrendra Bahadur Singh & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
U.O.I. ...Respondent
2 All. Amrendra Bahadur Singh & Anr. Vs. U.O.I.
25
Counsel for the Appellants:
Pradeep Singh Somvanshi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Vijay Pratap Singh, Amit Sharma, Harsha
Yadav

Railway Claims - Railway Accidents and
Untoward
Incidents
(Compensation)
Rules, 1990 -Compensation - Interest -
Applicability of Rina Devi principle -
Compensation determined under amended
rules higher than calculated amount with
interest under earlier rules - Tribunal
rightly awarded compensation as per
higher amount under new rules - Interest
granted from date of award, not from date
of accident - Held, as per U.O.I. v. Rina
Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, interest on
compensation is payable only on the
amount accruing as per comparative
calculation - No error in Tribunal's
computation - Request for lump sum
disbursal
without
pleading
or
cause
rejected
- Appeal misconceived and
dismissed. (Paras 7,8, and 10)
HELD:
The alleged untoward incident happened on
15.06.2015, in regard to which the claim
petition was filed before the Railway Claims
Tribunal, which has been allowed by means of
impugned
judgement
and
award
dated
18.10.2019 passed in Case No.OA/II/U/995/15
by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow. The amount of compensation of Rs.4
lakhs at the time of accident was enhanced to
Rs.8 lakhs by means of the amendment in Part-I
of the Schedule of the Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990
vide G.S.R. 1165 (E) dated 22.12.2016. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of U.O.I. Vs
Rina Devi (supra) has concluded that the
compensation will be payable as applicable on
the date of the accident with interest as may be
considered reasonable from time to time on the
same pattern as in accident claim cases and if
the amount so calculated is less than the
amount prescribed as on the date of the award
of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled for
higher of the two amounts.... (para 7)
In view of above, the compensation is to be
calculated on the date of award considering the
compensation applicable on the date of accident
and interest thereon as may be considered
reasonable from time to time and after
calculating the compensation applicable on the
date of accident with the interest thereon up to
the date of award and on comparing the same
with the present applicable compensation,
whichever is higher, the same would be the
amount of compensation on the date of award,
for which the claimant is entitled. Once the
amount of compensation is to be determined in
view of paragraph 15.4 of the aforesaid
judgement of U.O.I. Vs Rina Devi (supra) on the
date of award, the submission of learned
counsel for the appellants that on the so
determined
amount of compensation, the
interest should have been awarded from the
date of accident, is misconceived and is not
tenable because once the said amount of
compensation accrues on the date of award
after calculating as per procedure provided in
the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
interest can be awarded only for the subsequent
period from the date it accrues as the interest
can not be awarded for the period prior to the
date on which it accrues. (Para 8)

So far as the judgement relied by learned
counsel for the appellants, in the case of Anju &
ors. versus U.O.I. & ors.connected revisions
(supra), is concerned, the appellants have not
taken any ground in appeal and shown that the
appellant is in need of the whole money
together. It is also to be noted that despite
repeated asking to learned counsel for the
appellant by the Court that if required, he may
move
an
affidavit
and
application
for
amendment, which may be considered, learned
counsel for the appellants declined to do so and
insisted for disposal of appeal today itself. Thus
the contention of learned counsel for the
appellants is misconceived and not tenable.
(Para 10)

Appeal dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572

2. Anju & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors. connected
revisions, Civil Revision No. 3730 of 2019 (P&H
HC)
26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1.
Heard
Shri
Pradeep
Singh
Somvanshi,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants and Ms. Harsha Yadav, learned
counsel for the respondent.

2. The sole argument advanced by
learned counsel for the appellants is that
interest has been awarded from the date of
award, whereas it should have been
awarded from the date of incident as per
judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India vs. Rina Devi; Civil
Appeal No.4945 of 2018.

3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants relying on the judgement of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Civil Revision No.3730 of
2019 (O&M); Anju and others versus
Union of India and other connected
revisions further submits that the learned
Tribunal has wrongly and illegally directed
to make the payment of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in installments
and the total amount is liable to be released.
Therefore, the impugned judgement and
award is liable to be modified accordingly.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for
the respondent submits that the interest has
been awarded in accordance with the
aforesaid judgement of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India vs.
Rina
Devi
because
the
amount
of
compensation if enhanced after the incident
can be awarded after calculating the
interest
on
the
old
entitlement
of
compensation, if the same is higher on the
date of award along with interest and
accordingly the compensation and the
interest has been awarded, therefore, there
is no illegality or error in the impugned
judgement and award.
5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent further submits that there is no
ground for release of total amount of
compensation and the scheme has been
framed in pursuance of a judgement passed
by the Delhi High Court, therefore, unless
the ground is taken and the cause is shown,
the appellant is not entitled for release of
total amount together.

6.
Having
considered
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, I have perused the records.

7. The alleged untoward incident
happened on 15.06.2015, in regard to
which the claim petition was filed before
the Railway Claims Tribunal, which has
been allowed by means of impugned
judgement and award dated 18.10.2019
passed in Case No.OA/II/U/995/15 by the
Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow. The amount of compensation of
Rs.4 lakhs at the time of accident was
enhanced to Rs.8 lakhs by means of the
amendment in Part-I of the Schedule of the
Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
(Compensation) Rules, 1990 vide G.S.R.
1165 (E) dated 22.12.2016. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in the case of Union of
India vs. Rina Devi (supra) has concluded
that the compensation will be payable as
applicable on the date of the accident with
interest as may be considered reasonable
from time to time on the same pattern as in
accident claim cases and if the amount so
calculated
is
less
than
the
amount
prescribed as on the date of the award of
the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled
for higher of the two amounts. Relevant
paragraph 15.4 of the aforesaid judgement
is extracted herein-below:

 "15.4 Accordingly, we conclude
that compensation will be payable as
2 All. Amrendra Bahadur Singh & Anr. Vs. U.O.I.
27
applicable on the date of the accident with
interest as may be considered reasonable
from time to time on the same pattern as in
accident claim cases. If the amount so
calculated
is
less
than
the
amount
prescribed as on the date of the award of
the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled
to higher of the two amounts. This order
will not affect the awards which have
already become final and where limitation
for challenging such awards has expired,
this order will not by itself be a ground for
condonation of delay."

8.
In
view
of
above,
the
compensation is to be calculated on the
date
of
award
considering
the
compensation applicable on the date of
accident and interest thereon as may be
considered reasonable from time to time
and after calculating the compensation
applicable on the date of accident with the
interest thereon upto the date of award and
on comparing the same with the present
applicable compensation, whichever is
higher, the same would be the amount of
compensation on the date of award, for
which the claimant is entitled. Once the
amount
of
compensation
is
to
be
determined in view of paragraph 15.4 of
the aforesaid judgement of Union of India
vs. Rina Devi (supra) on the date of award,
the submission of learned counsel for the
appellants that on the so determined
amount of compensation, the interest
should have been awarded from the date of
accident, is misconceived and is not tenable
because
once
the
said
amount
of
compensation accrues on the date of award
after calculating as per procedure provided
in the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the interest can be awarded only for
the subsequent period from the date it
accrues as the interest can not be awarded
for the period prior to the date on which it
accrues.

9. In the present case, learned
Tribunal considered interest at the rate of
9% per annum as reasonable and after
calculating with the compensation of Rs.4
lakhs applicable on the date of accident
with interest at the rate of 9% from the date
of accident upto the date of award, the
Tribunal
found
that
the
enhanced
compensation of Rs.8 lakhs is higher
amount and accordingly held that the
applicant
shall
be
entitled
for
the
compensation of Rs.8 lakhs with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
award till the date of actual payment. This
Court does not find any illegality or
infirmity in it.

10. So far as the judgement relied
by learned counsel for the appellants, in the
case of Anju and others versus Union of
India and other connected revisions
(supra), is concerned, the appellants have
not taken any ground in appeal and shown
that the appellant is in need of the whole
money together. It is also to be noted that
despite repeated asking to learned counsel
for the appellant by the Court that if
required, he may move an affidavit and
application for amendment, which may be
considered,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants declined to do so and insisted for
disposal of appeal today itself. Thus the
contention of learned counsel for the
appellants is misconceived and not tenable.

11. This Court also does not find
any illegality or error in awarding interest
at the rate of 9% per annum, which has
been considered in the judgement of Union
of India vs. Rina Devi (supra) and not
enhanced.
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. In view of above, this Court
does not find any illegality or error in the
impugned judgment and award dated
18.10.2019 passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in
Case No.OA/II/U/995/15, which may call
for any interference by this Court. The
appeal has been filed on misconceived and
baseless grounds, which is liable to be
dismissed.

13. The appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 28
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Government Appeal No. 1062 of 2024
With
Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. 254 of
2023

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Manish Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.K. Sand, Sri Anil Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 498A, 304B & 302 - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 4 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161 &
313 - Appeal against acquittal - Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113-B -
Death due to demand of dowry not proved
as theory propounded by PW1 to PW3
regarding demand of dowry made just
after
four
days
of
marriage
when
deceased (victim) went for first time to
her maternal house from matrimonial
house stands belied since FIR lodged on
22.6.2017
relating
to
incident
dated
18.6.2017 does not show this fact - No
cruelty was inflicted upon deceased -
DW1 deposed that A1 was present in his
house on fateful day as he came to his
house to meet his ailing teacher, two or
three women came from house of A1,
apprised that wife of A1 consumed
pesticide pills, A1 along with DW1 and
villagers went to house where victim
consumed by mistake thinking it to be
medicine for fever - Testimony of DW1
intact,
no
questions
for
demolishing
testimony has been asked by prosecution.
(Para 41, 43)

PW2 and PW3 deposed that accused A2
was staying for the past 30-32 years,
where her husband was working - Nothing
on
record
either
in
deposition
of
prosecution witness or otherwise suggest
that
A1
and
A2
were
involved
in
commission of crime - No illegality in
impugned order. (Para 44, 46)

Appeals rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajesh Prasad Vs St. of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC
(471), (Paras 21 to 25)

2. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & ors. Vs
St. of Karn. 2024 (8) SCC 129, (Paras 38 to
40)

3. Yudhishtir Vs St. of M.P., 1971 (3) SCC 436,
(Para 11)

4. Digambar & anr. Vs St. of Mah. & anr.,
Criminal Appeal No....of 2024 arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.2122 of 2020, decided on 20.12.2024,
(Para 22)

5. Charan Singh @ Chanranjit Singh Vs The St.
of Uttarakhand (2023) 3 S.C.R. 511

6. Baijnath & others Vs St. of M.P. (2017) 1 SCC
101, (Para 13) (Relied on)