Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 588 (ORI)

Union of India v. Trilochan Nayak

2008-07-28

SANJU PANDA

body2008
JUDGMENT: As common questions of law and facts involve in these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. These appeals under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") have been preferred by the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Central Railway, Bombay, against four different awards made by the Railway Claims Tribunals, Bhubaneswar. 2. In brief, facts of each case are as follows: FAO No. 77 of 2006 In this appeal, the railway authorities have challenged the award dated 28th November, 2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 27 of 2003 allowing the claim application of the claimants-respondents in a case of death. One Narendra Kumar Nayak, the deceased, while travelling from Ahmedabad to Kharagpur in Ahemedabad-Howrah Express, got down from the train at Nagpur Station to take water and after taking water while he was boarding the train, it started with jerk for which he fell down and sustained the fatal injuries on 5-7-2002. Thereafter he succumbed to the said injuries. The parents and the minor brothers of the deceased are the claimants. The railway authorities filed their written statement in usual manner. In support of the claim, the claimants produced the inquest panchanama, post-mortem report and attested copy of the railway journey ticket No. 00135473 dated 4-7-2002 from Ahemedabad to Kharagpur. They also filed an affidavit of one Abhaya Mallick who was also travelling with the deceased in the same train. In the post-mortem report, it is recorded in the column in respect of substance of accompanying report of the police for the cause of death as 'railway accident' and in the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was 'hemorrhage'. The Tribunal after analyzing the materials available before it awarded the statutory compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest at the rate of 4% from the date of filing of the case. i.e. 22-4-2003". After receipt of copy of the award, the railway authorities without prejudice to the rights of the authorities paid the principal amount of Rs. 4 lakhs with costs. In this appeal, they have challenged the award passed by the Tribunal regarding payment of interest and raised the question of law as to whether the Tribunal was right in awarding 4% interest on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the application. 4 lakhs with costs. In this appeal, they have challenged the award passed by the Tribunal regarding payment of interest and raised the question of law as to whether the Tribunal was right in awarding 4% interest on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the application. FAO No. 463 of 2006 In this appeal the railway authorities have challenged the award dated 13-9-2006 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Bhubaneswar in OA No. 76 of 2004 allowing the claim application of the claimants respondents in a case of death. The case of the claimants-respondents is that while the husband of respondent No. 1 as travelling from Maharashtra to Bhubaneswar by Konark Express train as a bona fide passenger vide ticket No. 42669390 on 14-7-2004. due to sudden unexpected jerk of the train, he fell down from the running train on the left side of the track between Kaonshet and Lonavala Railway Stations and the co-passenger, the nephew of the deceased, pulled the chain of the train as a result of which the train was stopped and on the query being made by the driver of the train as to why he pulled the chain, he informed him that his uncle fell down from the train. Thereafter. the matter was also informed to the GRP and they found the deceased dead at the spot. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to Khandala where post-mortem was held on 15-7-2004. The claimants claimed compensation as they are dependants of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 4 lakhs with interest @ 4% from the date of filing of the original application i.e. 1-10-2004 and directed the amount to he paid within sixty days failing which the claimants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the original application. The claimants were also directed to be entitled to cost of Rs. 2000/-."The Tribunal further directed that out of the awarded amount a sum of Rs. 50.000/- with interest and cost shall be paid to claimant No.1 and out of the balance amount. Rs. 50.000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank to the choice of claimant No. 1 in her name for a period of one year. Rs. 1 lakh each shall be kept in fixed deposit in the names of claimant Nos. Rs. 50.000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank to the choice of claimant No. 1 in her name for a period of one year. Rs. 1 lakh each shall be kept in fixed deposit in the names of claimant Nos. 2 to 4 for a period often years with the liberty to claimant No. I to draw monthly interest accrued on those deposits for the maintenance of the minor claimants. In this appeal, the Railway has raised a technical point that though there is a provision under the Railways Act that specific issue shall be framed and the original application shall be decided after framing the issue, the Tribunal without framing any issue disposed of the original application and passed the award. FAO No. 424 of 2005. In this appeal, the railway authorities have challenged the award dated 23-8-2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Bhubaneswar in OA No. 78 of 2003 allowing the claim application of the claimants respondents in a case of death. The case of the claimants-respondents is that while the deceased as a bona fide passenger vide Ticket bearing No. 01977339 dated 26-6-2002 was travelling from Puri to Surat with his family members in Puri Ahamedabad Express. they did not get a seat due to over crowd in the general compartment. Therefore, the deceased occupied a small space near the exit door. On 27-6-2003 after passing the Nagpur Station the deceased accidentally fell down from the running train due to jerk and push and pull by the passenger. The family members tried to stop the train by pulling the alarm chain but the train stopped only at Wardha Station. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. The dead body was sent to Wardha for post-mortem examination. The claimants claimed compensation as they are dependants of the deceased. The Tribunal directed the Railway to pay the compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest at the rate of 4% from the date pf filing of claim application. i.e. 3-11-2003, within sixty days failing which the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate' of. 6% from the date of filing. The Tribunal further directed the Railway to pay a cost of Rs. 2500/-. FAO No. 425 of 2005 In this appeal. the railway authorities have challenge the award dated 23-8-2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. i.e. 3-11-2003, within sixty days failing which the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate' of. 6% from the date of filing. The Tribunal further directed the Railway to pay a cost of Rs. 2500/-. FAO No. 425 of 2005 In this appeal. the railway authorities have challenge the award dated 23-8-2005 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal. Bhubaneswar in OA No. 92 of 2003 allowing the claim application of the claimants respondents in a case of death. The case of the claimants-respondents is that one Sibaram Rout as a bona fide passenger vide ticket No. 24115 along with his co-villagers boarded Vijayawada bound East Coast Express from Balugaon to go to Surat They got down at Vijaywada. Station and caught Surat bound Nabajeeban Express on 18-3-2002 and got up in the general compartment which was over-crowded. While sitting near the Wash Basin. due to jerk and pull and push of passengers the deceased fell down from the train at Varungam Railway Station in Maharashtra and died on the spot on 19-3-2003 and the police registered an ADR Case No. 19 of 2002. The claimants claimed compensation as they are dependants of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs with 4% interest from 1-12-2003 within sixty days failing which the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6%. The Tribunal also directed the railway authorities to pay a cost of Rs. 2500/ - 3. In these above appeals the appellant Railway has not challenged the award of the Tribunal but has challenged the interest part only. 4. On behalf of the appellant-Railway in these appeals. a common question of law was urged contending that- (a) Whether the incidents are coming under the definition of "untoward incident" and the Railway is liable to pay compensation? and (b) Whether the Tribunal can grant interest pendente lite or future interest without any specific provisions regarding the payment of interest either in the 'Railways Act or in the Railways Claims Tribunal Act? 5. For better appreciation. Sections 2(29), 123, 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and the scope and powers of the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. 1987 are extracted hereunder; , "2. 5. For better appreciation. Sections 2(29), 123, 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 and the scope and powers of the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. 1987 are extracted hereunder; , "2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.:- (1) to (28) xxx xxx xxx (29) "passenger" means a person travelling with a valid pass or ticket; xxx xxx xxx" "CHAPTER XIII LIABILITY OF RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION FOR DEATH AND INJURY TO PASSENGERS DUE TO ACCIDENTS 123. Definitions.- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires.(a) "accident" means an accident of the nature described in Section 124; (b) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely: (i) the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or is a minor, his parent; (ii) the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger; (iii) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (iv) the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger; (c) "untoward incident" means (1)(i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or (ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or (iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, By any person in or on any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precinets of railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. " (Emphasis added) "124. " (Emphasis added) "124. Extent of liability.- When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passenger, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal iniury and loss, destruction, a damage or deterioration of goods owned by the pass engcr and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section "passenger" includes a railway servant on duty". (Emphasis added) "124-A. Compensation on account of un• toward incidents.- When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only • for loss occasioned by the death of or injured to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him; (b) self-inflicted injury; (c) his own criminal act; (d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity; (e) any natural cause or disease or medicalor surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, "passenger" includes - (i) a railway servant on duty; and (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. " "The Railways Act, 1989 was enacted as there was a need for replacement of old provision of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. To give effect to the changes in the railway system, some of the railway provisions of 1890 Act had continued. Under the Indian Railways Act, 1890 claimants who claims for compensation for death of, or injury, or loss, etc., to passengers in train accidents are settled by the Claims Commissioners. Those who claims compensation for loss of, damage to, booked goods and any consignors are not satisfied with the decisions of the railway administration shall file suits in the Courts of law as the litigation in the Court of Law and before the Claims Commissioner is very protracted. The Railway Tribunal has been set up for speedy adjudication of such claims and the Claims Tribunals are set up in different parts of the country with judicial and technical members who will provide much relief to the rail-users by way of expeditious payment of compensation to the victims of rail-accidents and to those whose goods are lost or damaged in rail transit. Such Tribunal will reduce the burden on the various civil Courts in the country, thereby giving them more time to decide other cases speedily. With the above features the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 was enacted. " 6. By Amendment Act 28 of 1994 Clause (c)(2) was inserted in Section 123 of the Railways Act, 1989 bringing the 'accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers' into the definition of 'untoward incident'. 7. From the above provision of the Railway Act, the points which are to be determined by the Tribunal is that the person who is claiming compensation for any loss, damage, injury or death must be a bona fide passenger (having a valid ticket and sustained injury or dead, as the case may be, in an untoward incident. 7. From the above provision of the Railway Act, the points which are to be determined by the Tribunal is that the person who is claiming compensation for any loss, damage, injury or death must be a bona fide passenger (having a valid ticket and sustained injury or dead, as the case may be, in an untoward incident. 'Untoward incident' should not fall within the Exception (a) to (e) of Proviso to Section 124-A of the Act and the 'accidental fall' would include a passenger trying to alight a train, board a train, or any other like action, I and he would be covered by 'untoward incident' as specified in Section 123(c) of the Act. Therefore, while boarding the train, due to jerk of the train if a person falls from the train and sustains injury or dies, it cannot be held that due to his own negligence or carelessness he sustained injury or died and the burden lies on the railway to prove that the person met with an accident or death due to his own negligence thereby not entitled to compensation from the railway. Section 124 of the Act explains the liability of the railway and under the Explanation to the said section, a railway servant on duty is also considered as a passenger. It was specifically stated in the said section that railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury or loss etc. 8. In the case of Union of India, South Central Railways v. Kurukundu Balakrishnaiah and others, reported in 2004 (1) ACJ 529, a Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court answered to the following reference whether a passenger trying to board or alight from a running train or standing near the door, jumped from the compartment, crossing the railway track or leaning out of the carriage; and during the course of such circumstance had fallen down and was either injured or had died, was entitled to compensation from the Railways under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The Court while answering the reference has held that (1) where a bona fide passenger dies in an untoward incident or sustains injuries, as the case may be, Railways to pay compensation without dispute, unless the death of the deceased, or the injuries sustained by the injured, would fall within the exceptions (a) to (e) of Proviso to Section 124-A of the Act; (2) accidental falling would include a passenger trying to alight a train, board a train, or any other like action, and hence they would be covered by untoward incident as specified in Section 123(c)(iii) Act. To attract any of the exceptions under Section 124-A Proviso, may have to be decided in each and every case and general propositions cannot be laid down in this regard in view of the complexity and diversity of the illustrations and the provisions, or the Rules. 9. It is a matter of common knowledge that the railway tickets are issued from one station to the other without even having a data as to wheher seats are available in the train for the passengers who are purchasing the tickets. Tickets are also issued to the persons who are coming to the railway platform to receive goods or passenger who are coming by a train and those persons who purchase the platform tickets are also covered under the head of 'bona fide passenger' as per Section 123(1)(iii) of the Act. A plain reading of Section 124 of the Railways Act clearly reveals the liability of the railway to pay compensation from the time when the accident took place. Thus, in view of the facts enumerated in the above paragraphs, the incidents involved in all these four appeals are coming under the heading of "untoward incidents "and as the deceased in these cases died due to such incidents, the railway authorities are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Hence, the first question is answered accordingly. 10. In the above aforesaid decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered Sections 123, 124, 124-A of the Railways Act from different angles. In view of the said decision, while boarding the train, due to jerk of the train if a person falls from the train and sustains injury or dies, it cannot be held that due to his own negligence or carelessness he sustained injury or died. In view of the said decision, while boarding the train, due to jerk of the train if a person falls from the train and sustains injury or dies, it cannot be held that due to his own negligence or carelessness he sustained injury or died. In the present cases, there is no iota of evidence that the deceased persons dies due to their own negligence. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation as per the Act as the incident does not come under the Proviso to Section 124-A of the Act. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant railway further submitted that the Tribunal can award interest only if the Act authorized the Tribunal to award interest on the amount of compensation. As the Railways Act and Rules are silent regarding payment of interest on the awarded compensation, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award interest and it has illegally awarded the interest from the date of filing of the application. The Tribunal could have awarded interest only after the compensation was determined by it and as per Section 127 the Act the railway authorities are liable to pay the amount to the claimants. Therefore, the interest is to be awarded from the date of the award and not from the date of the application. In support of his contention he has cited the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mahadeo Laxman Kumare and another v. Union of India reported in 2005 (1) TAC 507 (Bombay) (DB) where it was held that interest is payable only from the date of the award. He also cited a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Kasinath Behera & others. reported in 2006 (II) CLR 309 (FAO No. 331 of 2005) wherein this Court allowed the interest from the date of the award till the date of payment and not from the date of the application. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants. however. cited a decision of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Union of India v. Brigeet Chacko, reported in 2007 (4) TAC 518 (Ker) : AIR 2007 Ker 268 wherein it was held that the interest is payable from the date of application at such rate at the discretion of the Tribunal. The Tribunal can consider bank rate also. The Tribunal can consider bank rate also. It may take into consideration the other statutory provisions from the said purpose. 13. From the above rival submissions of the parties and from the provisions of the statute. it is clear that the Railways Act and Rules do not contain any provision to award interest on the amount of compensation. 14. The Tribunal awarded the compensation as per the Schedule of the Railways Act in exercise of its judicial discretion and can award interest on the compensation amount taking into consideration the provisions under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Civil Procedure Code lays down the procedure to be adopted in civil Courts and its principles may be applicable to other Courts. It provides for a fair procedure for redressal of disputes in accordance with law. Law determines the legal rights of the individuals and it contains provisions either to be enforced. applied for restraining from doing certain acts. Justice is administered in Courts. keeping in mind the law applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Court has a right to decide a case which fall within its jurisdiction. 15. As per Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code interest may be awarded to the plaintiff in the suit mainly dividing into three heads; (1) interest approved prior to the institution of the suit, (2) additional interest on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree; (3) further interest on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of the payment. Interest prior to the date of suit is not a matter of procedure. but the law on the subject may be considered under the following two heads i.e. (i) where there is a stipulation for payment' of interest at a fixed rate and (ii) where there is no stipulation for payment of interest. As there is no provision under the Railways Act or the Railway Tribunals Act to award interest. the jurisdiction of the Tribunal will come under the head of 'there is no stipulation for payment of interest'. If there is no express stipulation for payment of interest, a person is entitled to interest only where a right to it or an authority for its allowances or payment, is conferred by the statute. the jurisdiction of the Tribunal will come under the head of 'there is no stipulation for payment of interest'. If there is no express stipulation for payment of interest, a person is entitled to interest only where a right to it or an authority for its allowances or payment, is conferred by the statute. Since Section 124 of the Railways Act authorizes a right of compensation in the event of injury or death in a railway accident which is known as untoward incident. Therefore, the Tribunal can grant interest on the compensation amount from the date of the application. 16. The provisions of Interest Act. 1978 are also clear that in any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already is made, the Court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be. at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole pr part of the following period that is to say; (a) if the proceedings relate to a debt payable by virtue of written statement at a certain time then from the date when the debt is payable to the date of institution of the proceedings; (b) if the proceedings do not relate to any such debt then from the date mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable that interest will be claimed to the date of institution of the proceedings. (Emphasis supplied) 17. From the conjoint reading of the above provisions. it would appear that the Claims Tribunal is not bound to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 18 (2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act specifically provides that the Claims Tribunal shall decide other applications as expeditiously as possible and the same shall be decided after perusing the documents, written representation and affidavits after hearing such oral argument and the procedure is a summary procedure intended to adjudicate the claims within a short span of time. 18. 18. From the above provision "Of the Interest Act read with the definition of the "Court" as defined in Section 2(a) of the said Act which includes "a Tribunal" and "an Arbitrator". it is clear that the Court can grant interest. Therefore. the Railway Tribunal while awarding compensation payable to a claimant under the provision of the Railways Act has the jurisdiction to award interest under Section 3 of the Interest Act. The Tribunal also must keep in mind that the claimant •has already suffered delay in disposal of accident cases resulting delay in getting compensation, the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of not awarding interest from the date of the application. The Apex Court in the case of N. Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India reported in 2002 ACJ 841 (SC) : ( AIR 2002 SC 1834 ) while dealing with the judgment of a Division Bench of Kerala High Court, upheld the award of the Railway Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs and allowed the interest @ 12% and directed that the claimant is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the. application till the date of the payment (pendente lite interest). In the said decision, the Apex Court had also taken into consideration the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India reported in AIR 2001 SC 1333 . In the case of Prasant Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India reported in AIR 2007 Orissa 33 this Court after taking into consideration the decisions of the Apex Court as well as various High Courts has also allowed interest on the compensation awarded by the Railway Tribunals from the date of filing of the application. 19. So far as the decision reported in 2006 (II).CLR 309 (supra), this Court has held that in a claim under Railways Act interest on the awarded amount should be imposed from the date of award till payment and not from the date of application. This Court has also determined the compensation of Rs. 3.00.000/- (rupees three lakhs) in case of death ignoring the schedule which has specified the quantum of compensation in case of death and injuries. the statutory provisions. This Court has also determined the compensation of Rs. 3.00.000/- (rupees three lakhs) in case of death ignoring the schedule which has specified the quantum of compensation in case of death and injuries. the statutory provisions. With great respect to the learned Judge rendering the said judgment 2006 (II) CLR 309 (supra), this Court is constrained to hold that the finding of the learned Single Judge in the said decision is "per incuriam". Per incuriam is a Latin expression which means "through inadvertence". A decision can be said generally to be given per incuriam when a Court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or when a High Court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the Supreme Court (See (1990) 3 SCC 682 ). Per incuriam, literally means carelessness in practice. Per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. The quotable in law is avoided and ignored if it is rendered in ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority'. The decision has been rendered in ignorance of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Paramaswaran Pillai ( AIR 2002 SC 1834 ) (supra). In Civil Appeal No. 3753 of 2003 arising out SLP (Civil) No. 22919 of 2002 of SLP (Sabitri Sahoo v. Union of India), the Apex Court has held that as per Section 124 of the Railways Act the railway authorities "shall be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed". The compensation has been prescribed by the 'Rules'. 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 lakhs. (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 lakhs. (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." Thus, it is to be seen that the compensation in respect of death or injury "shall be as specified in the schedule" Part-1 of the Schedule specifies that for death the compensation must be Rs. 4 lakhs. 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 become 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. 20. Therefore, the decision in 2006 (II) CLR 309 cannot constitute the binding effect. (See 74 (1992) CL T 90 :(AIR 1992 Orissa 261) (FB), Krishna Chandra Pallai v. Union of India and another). 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. 20. Therefore, the decision in 2006 (II) CLR 309 cannot constitute the binding effect. (See 74 (1992) CL T 90 :(AIR 1992 Orissa 261) (FB), Krishna Chandra Pallai v. Union of India and another). The precedent that the decision of a Single Bench should not differ from the decision of another Single Bench without referring it to a larger Bench, is not applicable in the present case as the aforesaid decision is per incuriam. (See 1999 (II) OLR 236). . 21. As there is no prohibition either in the Railways Act or Railway Claims Tribunal Act to award interest on the compensation for the injury or death in an untoward incident, the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding interest in view of the above mentioned provisions of the Interest Act and the Civil Procedure Code. The question formulated at paragraph-3(b) is answered accordingly. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Railways Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar'Bench, Bhubaneswar. 22. The Railways Act provides that the Tribunal should follow the procedure and while disposing of the- claims application it should have framed specific issue and accepted the evidence as per the said issue and passed the award' 'alter analyzing the evidence and those provisions should be followed strictly. But so far as FAO No. 463 of 2006 is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal has not followed the said procedure. However, on the technicality of the same the claimants should not be prejudiced. Reference in this connection any be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Braja Kishore Sutar and another reported in 1991 (1) OLR 246: (1992 Lab IC 36). 23. The first appeals are accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. No. costs. Appeal dismissed.