JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - These two writ petitions have been listed together as the facts and reliefs sought for are common and they arise out of the same accident. Therefore, they are heard and disposed together of by this common judgment. 2. The first writ petition [W.P.(C) No.3324 of 2010] is filed by the parents of the deceased minor child who died on account of the railway accident claiming compensation and praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the opposite parties to take appropriate steps in the unmanned level crossing situated in village Saradola in between Cuttack and Jajpur Road so that future accidents can be avoided and to pay compensation to the petitioners for loss of their son to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which is the minimum liability of the Railway authority to a passenger as per Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989. 3. The second writ petition [W.P.(C) No.3325 of 2010] is filed by the minor-claimant (represented by father), who sustained severe injuries on account of the very same accident and became disabled, seeking suitable compensation though the prayer in the writ petition is not properly couched. 4. Brief facts as have been narrated in the above writ petitions are stated below with a view to find out as to whether the petitioners are entitled to reliefs as prayed for and to appreciate the legal contentions raised are as follows: On 25.2.2009 at about 10.30 A.M. while the son of the petitioners (in W.P.(C) No.3324 of 2010) Prakash Ranjan Sahoo aged about 27 years along with pillion rider Maheswar Sahoo aged about 14 years (the claimant-petitioner (W.P.(C) No.3325 of 2010)was going on a motorcycle through the unmanned level crossing situated in village Saradola in between Cuttack and Jajpur Road in the district of Cuttack, the motorcycle faced an accident and Prakash Ranjan Sahoo expired when a train i.e. Jaswantpur Special Express ran over him and the pillion rider Maheswar Sahoo sustained severe injuries on his person. On account of the said injuries he became disabled due to fracture on his left leg and other parts of the body. 5. On account of the said injuries he became disabled due to fracture on his left leg and other parts of the body. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that deceased Prakash Ranjan Sahoo along with pillion rider Maheswar Sahoo was going in a motorcycle but unfortunately when they were crossing the unmanned level crossing the alleged accident occurred as both sides of the railway lines were not visible to the persons crossing the railway line. The Railway authorities have not taken sufficient precautions in the particular level crossing for which every year the people are facing the accident causing their death and bodily injuries without any fault from their side. In support of their claim, petitioners have collected the proper address of family members whose family members have faced accidents in the last few years at the said level crossing. For the alleged accident a U.D. case has been registered through the Officer-in-Charge, G.R.P., Cuttack bearing G.R. Case No.196/2009 which is pending in the Court of the J.M.F.C. (R), Cuttack The certified copy of the F.I.R., Final Form, Inquest Report, P.M. Report, Zimanama are produced as Annexure-1 series, About the accident there was a paper publication in the Oriya local daily "The Samaja" dated 26th 'February, 2009. Xerox copy of the paper clippings is produced as Annexure-2. 6. It is stated that the deceased Prakash Sahoo was a Graduate in Arts and after his academic career he had completed Diploma in Computer Application Course. It is also stated that the deceased was a sportsman. In support of their claim, they have filed certain certificates as under Annexures-4, 5, 6 and 6. After completion of his aforesaid courses the deceased was doing a service and was getting Rs.5,000/per month. 7. Insofar as the case of the petitioner-Maheswar Sahoo is concerned, it is stated that he was studying in Class-IX at the time of the alleged accident. In support of his claim, he has filed Transfer Certificate issued by the concerned Headmaster of the School and disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Cuttack as per Annexures-4 and 5 respectively. 8. It is stated that the alleged level crossing is situated in the village Sardola and the houses of the village Sardola are lying in both sides of the level crossing. 8. It is stated that the alleged level crossing is situated in the village Sardola and the houses of the village Sardola are lying in both sides of the level crossing. Through this level crossing the villages of the nearby villages crossing the said level crossing every day to approach the N.H.5. The Railway authorities neither put any level crossing nor appointed any person to check the traffic at the time of passing of trains through the level crossing. Besides that, the railway authorities have not taken any precaution to make the people aware and conscious about the passing of the train. 9. It is stated that under Section 11 of the Railways Act, 1989 the Central Government is empowered to execute all necessary works for convenient running of the trains in the country. Under Section 18 of the Railways Act, 1989 that corresponds to Section 13 of the Railways Act, 1890 for the said convenient running of the train the authorities may construct suitable gates, chains, bars etc. at the level crossing. The aim and object of the legislation is to protect the living beings who are supposed to be affected by the running of the trains and for that the Parliament authorizes the Railway authorities to work in a responsible manner with a view to see that the persons who will be crossing the Railway crossing either to reach residences or other places shall not be affected. The Railways would work in crossing a foot way on level, as to the mode of working their railway, as to the rate of speed, and signalling and whistling and other ordinary precautions in the working of a railway to do everything which is reasonably necessary to secure the safety of persons who have to cross the railways by means of the foot way. 10. It is stated that a level crossing is on the one hand is a dangerous spot in view of the possible movement of trains and on the other hand is an invitation to the passer-by to cross the railway line through the said level crossing. This is a public crossing and not merely one by private accommodation. Therefore, it is the legal duty of the Railway to assure the reasonable safety. This is a public crossing and not merely one by private accommodation. Therefore, it is the legal duty of the Railway to assure the reasonable safety. The most obvious way of doing it is to provide gates or chain barriers and to post a watchman who should close them shortly before train passes. But failure to do so is not by itself an act of negligence provided that the Railway had taken other steps sufficient in those circumstances to caution effectively a passer-by of average alertness of prudence. At a reasonable distance of either side prominently written boards can be fixed asking the road users to the aware of trains. If the track in either side is visible from near the caution board or within a short distance of crossing this should be sufficient because a diligent road user could look round and see the train. On the other hand if there is bend in the track or there are trees and bushes in between or the road on the either side of crossing is very far below the level of the railway track or for any other similar reasons the railway track is not visible beyond a short distance, then even the certain boards are useless. In the present case the railway track was not visible for which the accident occurred. 11. Petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of the Assam High Court in Swarnalata Barua v. Union of India and others, AIR 1963 Assam 117, wherein it is held by the said High Court that there is an obligation on the part of the Railway Company or Administration to ensure that whenever a train passes over a thoroughfare adequate warning should be given to the public of the passing of the train at the time they pass, so that accident may be avoided. The said duty need not necessarily be a statutory duty. It is implied and inherent in the functions to be discharged by the Railway Administration in the matter of running their railways. The said duty need not necessarily be a statutory duty. It is implied and inherent in the functions to be discharged by the Railway Administration in the matter of running their railways. It is not disputed that had the Railway Administration taken the precautionary measure either by putting a railway gate for keeping it closed at the time the train was due to pass or putting some other obstruction which could have prevented the public from passing over the level crossing that would be the information and notice to the public that the train will pass through the railway track, then accident of this kind that had happened in this case would not have occurred. 12. It is the further case of the petitioners that soon after such accident occurred, after receiving notice under Section 113 as per the Railways Act, 1989 an enquiry must have been conducted under Section 114 or 115 of the Railways Act, 1989. If such report could have been called for by the competent authority of the Railways, the same would have disclosed the negligence on the part of the Railway authorities, which had resulted the accident. 13. The petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal and others., A.I.R. 1980 SC 1354, wherein it is observed that Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. 14. The petitioners further placed reliance upon Section 124 of the Railway Act read with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, whereunder no fault liability of the passenger who expires in a railway accident has been fixed at Rs.4.00 lakh. The said facility should also be extended to the accident victims who lost lives or became disabled on account of the Railway accident in the level crossing due to the negligence of the Railway Administration, particularly when level crossing is a place where the public are allowed to cross the railway track. 15. The said facility should also be extended to the accident victims who lost lives or became disabled on account of the Railway accident in the level crossing due to the negligence of the Railway Administration, particularly when level crossing is a place where the public are allowed to cross the railway track. 15. Reliance has also been on Radul Sah v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 1983 SC 1086 , wherein the Apex Court observed that in appropriate cases, the Court discharging constitutional duties can pass orders of payment of money in the nature of compensation consequent upon deprivation of a fundamental rights to life and liberty of a petitioner as State must repair the damage done by its offices to the petitioner's right. 16. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision in Smt. Kalawati and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another., AIR 1989 H.P. 5 and also in the case of Kumari Seema alias Seema v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others, AIR 1994 H.P.139, wherein the aforesaid High Court ruled that the writ Court can grant relief to the petitioners claiming damages for the injuries arising out of the accident occurred due to the negligence of the State authorities like the Electricity Board. In the case of Smt. Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 1992 SC 2069 , the Apex Court overruling the decision of the High Court of Tamil Nadu observed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by the Writ Court for awarding compensation to a victim, who suffered due to negligence of the State or its functionaries. In that case six years' old child had fallen down in the uncovered sewerage tank. The High Court refused to entertain the claim of compensation in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the Apex Court directed the State to pay compensation. In the case of Parikhita Behera and another v. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Khurda Division, 1997 (II) OLR, 69, this Court also took the same view that jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked and direction for payment of compensation can be awarded in favour of the claimants, if there was deliberate act of negligence on the part of the statutory authorities, namely, the Railway Administration. 17. 17. It is submitted that Section 18 of the Railway Act, 1989 contemplates putting gates, chain, bars etc. at the level crossings for smooth running of the trains. It is not a mandatory provision and that the Railway Administration are liable to put such gates, bars etc. only at the level crossing, where the traffic flow is considerable and/or where the visibility of the level crossing and appointing train to the pedestrian or vehicles is not clear. In the present case, neither the coming of train was visible nor have the authorities taken sufficient precautions to avoid the accident. Therefore, it is pleaded by the petitioners' counsel that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the railway authorities for not putting gates, bars and not appointing watchman on that unmanned level crossing and not taking sufficient precautionary measures. The accident occurred due to deliberate act of negligence on the part of the railway administration. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to compensation claimed in these writ petitions. 18. A common counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. It is stated therein that the writ petitions are not maintainable both on facts and in law as they involve disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It is further stated that writ is not maintainable in law, as no fault can be attributed to the Railways for the alleged death and injuries caused due to the said accident. Certain background facts of the case are stated briefly in the counter, which are as follows: 19. It is stated that the unfortunate incident has occurred due to carelessness driving of Late Prakash Ranjan Sahoo, Male-25 by Hero Honda CD Dawn Motorcycle bearing registration No.OR-05-T-7191 on the unmanned level crossing No.175 at KM395/27-29/28-30 between NRG-KIS. The said accident has taken place on 25.2.2009 at about 9.05 hours with 0201 Express with motorcycle driven by one Prakash Ranjan Sahoo of which one Maheswar Sahoo was the pillion rider. The accident has occurred due to sheer negligence on the part of Late Prakash Ranjan Sahoo and Maheswar Sahoo who did not take minimum prudence before crossing the unmanned level crossing which is equipped with all kinds of safety norms, namely, W/L Board, Stop Board and Speed Breaker Board. The accident has occurred due to sheer negligence on the part of Late Prakash Ranjan Sahoo and Maheswar Sahoo who did not take minimum prudence before crossing the unmanned level crossing which is equipped with all kinds of safety norms, namely, W/L Board, Stop Board and Speed Breaker Board. The visibility of the level crossing is also adequate i.e. more than 600 meters for both up and down trains. 20. It is also stated that Prakash Ranjan Sahoo the driver of the motorcycle has completely failed to ensure minimum prudence and is fully responsible because of his carelessness. The level crossing surface is provided with cement concrete blocks. Hence, it is not a fact that the accident occurred because of low visibility. Further the level crossing in question does not fulfil the criteria for manning as TVU as per the December, 2006 has been determined at 1276. The revised criteria for unmanned level crossing as circulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, is produced as Annexure-A/1. 21. It is stated that the said level crossing till date does not qualify for manning as per the latest Railway Board guidelines. However, the level crossing is equipped with all kinds of safety provisions as per the norms of the Railway Administration. The Railway's liability for putting chains, bars etc. at every level crossing are not absolute. Therefore, the Railway authorities have acted in responsible manner by complying with all norms at the unmanned level crossing and no negligence therefore can be attributed on the part of the Railway. 22. It is pleaded that there being violation of Section 147 of the Railway Act, the Railway Administration cannot be held responsible for the said mishap. Moreover, the decisions cited have absolutely no application to the present case. The said decision does not deal with Railway accident nor Section 147 of the Railway Act as well as Section 18 of the Railway Act. Also, the benefit of Section 124 of the, Railway Act cannot be extended to such an accident to cover the accident which is outside the purview of the Section 124 itself. 23. It is stated that there being violation of Section 147 of the Railway Act, the Railway Administration cannot be held responsible for the said mishap. Also, the benefit of Section 124 of the, Railway Act cannot be extended to such an accident to cover the accident which is outside the purview of the Section 124 itself. 23. It is stated that there being violation of Section 147 of the Railway Act, the Railway Administration cannot be held responsible for the said mishap. In the present case the incident has occurred due to sheer negligence and lack of minimum prudence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle as well as the pillion rider. Further, there is no statutory obligation on the part of the Railway to man all level crossings, fence such level crossing under Section 18 of the Railway Act. The decisions cited have no application to the facts of the case particularly when the said decisions do not deal with the provisions of the Railway Act. So far as the decision in Parikhit Behera and another v. The Divisional Railway Manager, S.E. Railway, Khurda Division and others, 1997 (II) OLR 69, is concerned, this Court came to a conclusion that there is some negligence on the part of the Railway. In the present case, the entire negligence is attributed to the driver of the motorcycle as well as the pillion rider who have taken no minimum prudence before crossing the level crossing. Hence, no compensation is payable as the Railway Administration is not at all at fault and the level crossing is equipped with all norms to be complied with in a unmanned level crossing. 24. It is stated that there being violation of Section 147 of the Railway Act, 1989, the Railway Administration cannot be held responsible for the said mishap. The allegation of the petitioners that the accident has occurred due to unmanned level crossing and negligence of the Railway is absolutely wrong. Therefore, in such a fact situation no compensation is payable by the Railway. 25. With reference to the aforesaid rival legal contentions raised at the Bar, the questions that fall for consideration by this Court are as follows: (i) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in law? (ii) Whether the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the Railway Administration by not providing sufficient protection at the level crossing and without deploying guard or putting check gate as required under Section 18 of the Railway Act, 1989 ? (ii) Whether the accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of the Railway Administration by not providing sufficient protection at the level crossing and without deploying guard or putting check gate as required under Section 18 of the Railway Act, 1989 ? (iii) Whether on account of not providing safeguard to the level crossing by the Railway Administration, the petitioners are entitled to compensation as claimed? (iv) What order? 26. To answer the above points, we have carefully examined the facts and rival legal contentions urged in the above writ petitions. As can be seen from the provisions of Section 18 of the Railway Act, 1989, the Railway Administration has the statutory obligation to provide sufficient safeguards to the level crossing by putting railway check gate and keeping it closed at the time when train is due to pass at the level crossing area. In the instant case, had the Railway Administration taken the precautionary measure either by putting a railway gate and keeping it closed at the time the train was due to pass, or put up some other obstruction which could prevent the public from passing over the level crossing giving them information and notice of the approaching train, the accident of the kind that had happened in this case could have been avoided. After receiving notice under Sections 113 from the petitioners as per the Railways Act, 1989, an enquiry must have been conducted by the Railway Authorities under Sections 114 and 115 of the Railways Act, 1989. If such report would have been produced, then it could have disclosed whether there is negligence on the part of the Railway Administration on account of which the accident took place resulting in death of the deceased and severe injuries to the minor boy. Therefore, the said enquiry report as required under Section 113 of the Railways Act having not been produced, this Court draws an adverse inference against the Railways that there is negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in not taking sufficient precautionary measures by posting guard or keeping the railway gate closed at the time while the train was due to pass through that level crossing. Non-compliance with the aforesaid statutory obligations by the Railway Administration, we reject the contentions urged by the 1earned counsel for the Railway that there are serious questions of disputed facts and due to carelessness on the part of the deceased and the injured the alleged accident occurred on the fateful day resulting in death of deceased and severe injuries to the minor boy. For the above reasons, we hold that the writ petitions are maintainable in law. Further, the Apex Court in N.K.V. Brothers' case (supra) upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners made certain observations, the relevant portion of which is extracted as hereunder: "... Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbour. Indeed the State must seriously consider no fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parsimony practised by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Art. 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for state relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals' and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposal so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard......" 27. Further, the High Court of Assam in Swarnalata Barua's case (supra) has held that there is an obligation on the part of the Railway Administration to ensure that whenever a railway passes over a thoroughfare adequate warning should be given to the public about passing of the train at the time they pass so that accidents may be avoided. This duty need not necessarily be a statutory duty. It is implied and inherent in the functions to be discharged by the Railway Administration in the matter of running their railways. It is not disputed that had the Railway Administration taken the precaution of either putting up of a railway gate and keeping it closed at the time the train was due to pass or put up some other obstruction which could prevent the public from passing over the level crossing giving them information and notice of the approaching train, the accident of the kind that happened in this case could not have happened. 28. Having answered point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners, and against the Railway Administration, we are required to answer point No.3 with regard to compensation in favour of the petitioners with the following reliefs. 29. Under Section 124 of the Railway Act read with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the no fault liability of the passenger who expires in a railway accident has been fixed at Rs.4.00 lakh. In the instant case, the victims lost their lives or became disabled in the said accident due to the negligence on the part of the Railway Administration in putting gates at the level crossing is placed or public are allowed to cross the railway line without providing precautionary measures as indicated above. Further, the Apex Court in Rahul Sah's case (supra) has observed that in appropriate cases, the Court discharging Constitutional duties can pass orders for payment of money in the nature of compensation. Further, the Apex Court in Rahul Sah's case (supra) has observed that in appropriate cases, the Court discharging Constitutional duties can pass orders for payment of money in the nature of compensation. Consequent upon deprivation of the fundamental right to life and liberty of a petitioner the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's right. 30. Further, in Kalawati's case (supra) and in Kumari Seema alias Seema's case (supra), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh ruled that writ Court can grant relief to the petitioners claiming damages for the injuries arising out of negligence of the State authorities like the Electricity Board. In the case of Smt. Kumari's case (supra), the apex Court overruling the decision of the High Court of Tamil Nadu observed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of he Constitution can be invoked for awarding compensation to a victim, who suffered due to negligence of the State or its functionaries. The same view has been taken by this Court in Parikhita Behera's case (supra), wherein it is observed that jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked and direction for payment of compensation can be given if there is deliberate act of negligence on the part of the Railway Administration. 31. In this regard, the undisputed fact is that in the alleged accident one person died and a minor boy sustained severe injuries. Under Section 124 of the Railway Act read with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, no fault liability of the passenger who expires in a railway accident has been fixed at RS.4.00 lakh. The same amount can .be awarded to the petitioners for the reason that there cannot be any discrimination between passenger and non-passenger who died in railway accident. 32. It will be useful to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Priya Vasant Kalgutkar v. Murad Shaikh and others, (2009) SCC 54, wherein the Supreme Court considered the case of a minor aged 9 years who met with an accident and suffered 10% permanent disability and after examining the provisions under Section 163-A and Schedule-II of the M.V. Act, 1988, observed that the compensation for injuries suffered by a person in a motor vehicular accident can be determined either on the basis of actual damages suffered or upon application of structured formula. In the said judgment at paragraph-7, the Supreme Court has referred to the case of Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 . In the said case, compensation awarded in respect of the minor children was divided into two groups, i.e., the first group between the age group of 5 to 10 years and the second group between the age group of 10 to 15 years. In the case of children between the age group of 5 to 10 years, a uniform sum of Rs.50,000/- has been held to be payable by way of compensation, to which the conventional figure of Rs.25,000/- is to be added and as such to the heirs of the 14 children, a consolidate sum of Rs.75,000/- each, has been awarded. So far as the children in the age group of 10 to 15 years are concerned, there are 10 such children who died on the fateful day and having found their contribution to the family at Rs.12,000/- per annum, 11 multiplier has been applied, particularly, depending upon the age of father and then the conventional compensation of Rs.25,000/- has been added to each case and consequently, the heirs of each of the deceased above 10 years of age, has been granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,57,000/-. After referring tot he case of Taff Vale Railway Co. v. Jenkins, (1911-13) All ER Rep 160 (HL), it has been observed that in the case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) no iota of material was produced to enable the learned Judge to arrive at a just compensation in such case. Therefore, he determined the same on an approximation on the basis of the submission of the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for TISCO that compensation determined for the children of all age groups could be doubled, as in his view also, the determination made is grossly inadequate. On the basis of the said submission made in the said case it was directed that the compensation amount for the children between the age group of 5 to 10 years should be three times. In other words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakh, to which the conventional figure of Rs.50,000/- should be added and thus the total amount in each case would be Rs.2.00 lakh. In other words, it should be Rs.1.5 lakh, to which the conventional figure of Rs.50,000/- should be added and thus the total amount in each case would be Rs.2.00 lakh. In so far as children between the age group of 10 to 15 years are concerned, they are all students of Class VI to X and are children of employees of TISCO, Having regard to the facts of the said case, the contribution of Rs.12,000/- per annum was on the lower side and, therefore, the contribution should be Rs.24,000/- and instead of 11 multiplier the appropriate multiplier would be 15 which is worked out to Rs.3.60 lakh to which an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- has to be added, thus making the total amount payable at Rs.4.10 lakh for each of the claimants of the aforesaid deceased children. Keeping the aforesaid criteria followed in awarding the compensation in view, though Section 124 of the Railways Act, 1989 read with the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 provides for a compensation for no fault liability to the passenger who expires in railway accident of Rs.4,00,000/-, considering the facts situation of the case and keeping in view the future prospect of the deceased children and prospective loss of future earning which would have benefited the parents, we deem it appropriate to award Rs.3.50 lakh to the legal representatives of each of one of the deceased children. 33. In the instant case, the disability certificates dated 19.09.2009 and 06.03.2010) (Annexure-6 series) issued in favour of petitioner-Maheswar Sahoo in W.P.(C) No.3325 of 2010 by the District Medical Board, Cuttack disclose that petitioner Maheswar Sahoo sustained fracture of left leg with "Malunited Lt Femur & Tibia and shortening of leg and stiff knee" on his person, It is further certified that he suffers from 40% permanent physical disability. In this view of the matter, the petitioner throughout his life has to suffer. More so, Malunited Lt Femur & Tibia and shortening of leg and stiff knee indicate that he will be requiring assistance throughout his life and as he has lost ability of using left leg. In this view of the matter, the petitioner throughout his life has to suffer. More so, Malunited Lt Femur & Tibia and shortening of leg and stiff knee indicate that he will be requiring assistance throughout his life and as he has lost ability of using left leg. Therefore, it would be just and proper for this Court to grant him reasonable compensation of Rs.65,000/- (rupees sixty-five thousand) under all heads such as fracture of one leg and shortening of leg and stiff knee, pain and suffering, loss of amenity, medical expenses, nutritious foods and attendant charges during medical treatment. Insofar as the death of Prakash Ranjan Sahoo (deceased) is concerned, compensation of Rs.4.00 lakh (rupees four lakh) from all heads to the claimant-petitioners would be just and proper. 34. It is worthwhile to extract the relevant paragraphs from the judgment of Karanataka High Court in the case of K. Narasimha Murthy v. The Manager, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bangalore and another, ILR 2004 KAR 2471, wherein the Division Bench in an appeal preferred by the claimant under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 succinctly laid down the legal principle after extracting the relevant paragraphs from the decision of the appeal cases in (1880) 5 App Case 25, ILR 1987 Karnataka 1399, in support of our conclusion for determination of the compensation for personal injury both for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses in favour of the injured petitioners, which reads as under: "Para-19. LORD BLACKBURN IN LIVINGSTONE VS. RAWYARDS COAL CO., (1880) 5 App Case 25, has observed thus: . Para-22. In the above case, Their Lordships of the House of Lords, observed that the bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles plaintiff to the damage and that the amount of damages varies according to the gravity of the injury. Their Lordships emphasized that in personal injury cases the Court should not award merely token damages but they should grant substantial amount which could be regarded as adequate compensation. Para-23. In Wards, (1965) 1 ALL ER, speaking for the Court of Appeal in England, Lord Denning while dealing with the question of awarding compensation for personal injury laid down three basic principles: "Firstly, assessability. Para-23. In Wards, (1965) 1 ALL ER, speaking for the Court of Appeal in England, Lord Denning while dealing with the question of awarding compensation for personal injury laid down three basic principles: "Firstly, assessability. In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases, otherwise, there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability. Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceable and not brought to Court, a thing very much to the public good." Para-25. In BASAVARAJ V. SHEKAR, ILR 1987 KAR 1399, a Division Bench of this Court held: "If the original position cannot be restored - as indeed in personal injury or fatal accident cases it cannot obviously be the law must endeavour to give a fair equivalent in money, so far as money can be an equivalent and so make good the damage." Para-26. "Therefore, the general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the Court should award to injured person such a sum of money as will, put him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained the injuries. But, it is manifest that no award of money can possibly compensate an injured man and renew a shattered human frame." Para-27. Lord Morris of Borthy Gest in PARRY v. Cleaver, (1970) AC 1 at 22, said; "To compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult but... no other process can be devised than that of making a monetary assessment" 35. The Apex Court in the case of R.D. Hattangaddi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 1995 SC 775, at paragraph10 of the judgment has also held as under: "Para-10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a life long handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant That is why it has been said by Courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury 'so far as money can compensate' because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame." 36. In view of the above, the claimant-petitioners in both the cases are entitled to compensation. Hence non-grant of the compensation to the claimant-petitioners by the Railway Administration is not sustainable in law. Hence, we answer the point No.3 in affirmative by awarding compensation of Rs.4.00 lakh (rupees four lakh) to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3324 of 2010 whose child died in the said railway accident and Rs.65,000/- (rupees sixty five thousand) to the injured claimant in W.P.(C) No.3325 of 2010. The petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the claim made before the opposite parties till realization. The same shall be computed and disbursed to the claimant-petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. I agree. Petitions allowed.