Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the railway. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants who are the parents of the deceased who died in train accident dated 19.10.1998 when Magadh Express-Vikramshila Express (Train No. 2392) was derailed at Gahmar Station, Eastern Railways due to which the deceased, Kumari Kamla who was travelling by the train with a valid ticket as bona fide passenger was killed. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.9.2001 by which the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench allowed the Claim Application No. OA9900143 of 1999 filed by appellants and directed payment of Rs. 4,00,000.00 (four lacs) as compensation to the appellants deducting Rs. 25,000.00 paid earlier as ex-gratia money and it was also directed that 90 per cent of the rest amount was to be deposited in fixed deposit for a period of 5 years and 10 per cent of the rest amount shall be paid in cash to the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants raises two objections. The first objection is that according to Circular dated 26.8.1997 issued by the office of Divisional Railway Manager, Samastipur a direction was given that ex-gratia payments, except in case of road users at manned level crossings, are not to be taken into account at the time of formal claims for compensation and hence ex-gratia amount paid to the applicants earlier should not have been deducted from the amount of compensation allowed by the authority. The second point raised by the appellant is that there was no occasion for the authorities to direct deposit of 90 per cent of the amount in fixed deposit account of bank and for payment of only 10 per cent to the appellants in cash, specially when the appellants are old persons and there is no provision in law for such an order. 5. So far the second question is concerned, the impugned order has been passed on 20.9.2001 and no order of stay with respect to that order has been passed in the instant appeal, hence five years having already lapsed, the entire amount of the said 90% has to be paid to the applicants by the authorities or by the bank, whichever is authorised to pay the amount to the appellants if not yet paid. Hence this point has no force left in the said circumstances. Hence this point has no force left in the said circumstances. 6. So far the first question is concerned, sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 126 of the Railways Act, 1989 deals with the ex-gratia payment for the relief to be afforded to the applicant immediately. Furthermore, sub-sec. 4 of the aforesaid Section specifically provides that any sum paid by the railway administration under sub-sec. (2) shall be taken into account by the Claims Tribunal while determining the amount of compensation payable. The said provision of law is very clear and hence the Circular issued by the authorities can have no force of law if it is contrary to the provision of Act. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to this point also. As a result, this Misc. appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.