ORDER : Leave granted. 2. In this case a railway accident took place on 26th November, 1998 whereunder son of the appellant, who was a signalman in the army, died. The appellant filed a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The Railway Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,84,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. The appellant filed an appeal in the High Court. The appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this appeal. 3. The question for consideration before us is whether the amount of compensation laid down in the Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 is to be the compensation which must be granted or the Court has the discretion to grant lower compensation. Section 124 of the Railways Act, inter alia, provides that the compensation is to be to as prescribed. The compensation has been prescribed by the Rules mentioned hereinabove. The relevant Rule reads as follows:- "3. Amount of Compensation - (1) The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries, shall be as specified in the Schedule. (2) The amount of compensation payable for injury not specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule but which, in the opinion of the Claims Tribunal is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do any work, shall be rupees two lakh's. (3) The amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury (other than an injury specified in the Schedule or referred to in sub-rule (2) resulting in pain and suffering, shall be such as the Claims Tribunal, may after taking into consideration medical evidence, besides other circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable: Provided that if more than one injury is caused by the same accident, compensation shall be payable in respect of each such injury; Provided further that the total compensation in respect of all such injuries shall not exceed rupees forty thousand. (4) Where compensation has been paid for any injury which is less than the amount which would have been payable as compensation if the injured person had died and the person subsequently died as a result of the injury, a further compensation equal to the difference between the amount payable for death and the already paid shall become payable." 4. (4) Where compensation has been paid for any injury which is less than the amount which would have been payable as compensation if the injured person had died and the person subsequently died as a result of the injury, a further compensation equal to the difference between the amount payable for death and the already paid shall become payable." 4. Thus, it is to be seen that the compensation in respect of death or injury "shall be as specified in the schedule" Part-I of the Schedule specifies that for death the compensation must be Rs. 4 lakh's. Rule 3(4) clarifies that if compensation paid, for any injury, is less than the amount which would have been paid if the person had died and the person subsequently dies then the difference becomes payable. This also indicates, apart from the specific words used in Rule 3(1), that what has been prescribed in the Schedule is the amount which has to be paid. We therefore cannot agree with the view of the Claims Tribunal and the High Court that Courts have a discretion to prescribe lower amount of compensation. 5. In this view of the matter, we direct that the compensation payable shall be a sum of Rs. 4 lakh's. The amount already paid will be deducted from the said sum of Rs. 4 lakh's. The appellant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% on the amount to be paid. The payment shall be made within three months from today. With this direction, the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Appeal is allowed.