JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi has preferred this appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 in challenge to award dated 28th April, 2017 rendered by Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. The claim application of the respondent claimants has been allowed. The Northern Railway has been directed to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- (eight lacs) as compensation in apportionment amongst the widow of the deceased, two daughters and two sons, for the death of Ashok Kumar Singh. It has further been provided that the awarded amount would carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing claim application till the date of award. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a legal issue, viz. the accident took place on 8.6.2010. As on 8.6.2010, the amount payable for death as per Rule 3 of The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (for short, the Compensation Rules 1990) and the Schedule drawn under the said Rules was Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lacs). A sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (eight lacs) has been awarded for the death of Ashok Kumar Singh in terms of amendment which came into effect from 1.1.2017. It has been pleaded on behalf of Northern Railway that compensation has to be assessed under Section 124A of The Railways Act, 1989 (for short, "Railways Act") in relation to the date of the incident, and not date of consideration/award. The question of law that arises for consideration is whether the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (compensation) Amendment Rules 2016 which came into effect from 1.1.2017 can be made applicable for death or injury sustained before that date? Learned counsel has also challenged the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that Ashok Kumar Singh was a passenger on the train. It has been pleaded that Ashok Kumar Singh was walking along the railway track when he was hit by the rail, therefore, untoward incident did not occur in the course of working of a Railway. The case would not be covered under the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act. 3. The appellant, along with memorandum of appeal, has brought on record the claim application filed before the Tribunal, the written statement purportedly filed on behalf of Railways, the affidavits and other evidences led before the Tribunal. The case would not be covered under the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act. 3. The appellant, along with memorandum of appeal, has brought on record the claim application filed before the Tribunal, the written statement purportedly filed on behalf of Railways, the affidavits and other evidences led before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents pray that the appeal be heard, considered in context of the documents filed which are not controverted, and disposed of. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the impugned award, as also the evidences/documents placed before us. 5. Respondents claimants preferred a claim petition dated 9.8.2010 with the plea that Ashok Kumar Singh aged about 55 years while travelling from Hardoi to Roza accidentally fell down from the train near Pihani Road Crossing, Hardoi and sustained serious injuries which caused his death. In such circumstances, Railways were liable to pay compensation as per the Railways Act. 6. Although, the Railway Claims Tribunal has held that written statement was not filed on behalf of Northern Railway, however, it is the case of the appellant Railways that written statement dated 30.8.2010 was filed, which has been placed on record as Annexure No. 2. So as to give advantage of the pleadings to the appellant and considering that appeal is a continuation of the trial, we have taken into account the contents of the written statement. Learned counsel for the respondent claimants has not objected to the same. In the claim petition in para 18, the following has been pleaded :- "The person deceased was going to Roza from Hardoi. He was accidentally fell down from the train near Pihani road Crossing Hardoi and sustained serious injuries and died due to antimortem injuries. The respondent railway is liable to pay compensation to the dependent of the person dead." In the written statement, in regard to above noted specific assertion, the following has been said :- "That the contents of para 18 of the claim application are strongly denied for want of knowledge, the claimants are put to strict proof of the allegations made in the para under reply." Issues 1 and 2 were framed by the Railway Claims Tribunal in the following terms :- "1. Whether the deceased was travelling as a bona-fide passenger of the train in question. 2. Whether the deceased was travelling as a bona-fide passenger of the train in question. 2. Whether incident of death of the deceased falls under the ambit of an untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) read with Section 124 A of the Railways Act 1989 ?" The above extracted issues have been dealt with together by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that husband of claimant no. 1 Ashok Kumar Singh was travelling from Hardoi to Roza on 8.6.2010 on a passenger train. The deceased was carrying a valid monthly season ticket which was recovered by the police at the time of Panchnama. In the course of the journey, the deceased fell off the train near Pihani Road Railway Crossing, Hardoi and consequently on receiving serious injuries died the same day. For recording the above noted finding the Tribunal has relied on the statement of the widow, claimant no. 1 who disclosed that her deceased husband used to commute daily from Hardoi to Roza. The Tribunal has also relied on the panchnama. It is not disputed that railway ticket bearing no. 11079936 was recovered from the body of the deceased. As noted in earlier part of the judgement the claimant in Para 18 of the claim application specifically pleaded that the deceased fell down from the train and died due to antemortem injuries. The railway is liable to pay compensation. This asserted fact has not been specifically denied, as noted above. The Tribunal while allowing the claim of the claimant has taken into account the fact that although it was mandatory on the part of the railways under the Rule framed under Section 129 of the Railways Act to file statutory investigation report of DRM, however, the needful was not done, therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the railways. The Tribunal has further taken into account the evidence of Suresh Pal who disclosed that on 8.6.2010 he was on duty as Loco Pilot of train No. 14369 from Lucknow to Bareilly. After departure from Hardoi Railway Station, he saw one boy walking on the line. Whistle was blown. The boy, however, did not move away from the line. Emergency brakes were applied but the train dashed against him. The boy sustained injuries. Station Master was informed. After departure from Hardoi Railway Station, he saw one boy walking on the line. Whistle was blown. The boy, however, did not move away from the line. Emergency brakes were applied but the train dashed against him. The boy sustained injuries. Station Master was informed. We have also considered the contents of the affidavit filed in evidence by Suresh Pal who appeared as a witness for the railways. Reference to the injured/deceased has been made as a boy. The deceased Ashok Kumar Singh was a man aged 55 years and therefore, cannot possibly be termed as a boy. The Tribunal has rendered the statement of Suresh Pal suspicious and unreliable for the reason that a man (deceased) aged 55 years has been termed as a boy. This indicates that Suresh Pal was not witness to the incident. 7. The Tribunal has also considered the report recorded in Station Master diary book. The report mentions the injured along with motorcycle having Registration No. UP30 E 5972, which allegedly was lying on the railway tracks. The Tribunal for the right reasons has shown suspicion in regard to the conflicting statements of Station Master, as recorded in the official documents and statement of the train driver Suresh Pal, as noticed above. Evidently, Suresh Pal did not make any mention of a motorcycle on the railway track, whereas there is a specific reference to motorcycle and its registration number, as recorded in the station master diary book. Such serious contradictory stands taken on behalf of the railways in its evidence have rendered the story of the appellant, as projected before the Tribunal suspicious. Per contra the stand taken in the claim petition to the effect that Ashok Kumar Singh was a daily commuter and died on account of a fall from the train is worthy of belief, particularly so because the railway pass was recovered from the body of the deceased. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation in holding that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issues 1 and 2 is based on relevant evidence. Reasons assigned for drawing the conclusion are legally tenable. Accordingly, the findings on issues 1 and 2 are hereby upheld. 8. In regard to quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant Shri Neerav Chitravansi, Advocate has vehemently and assertively argued that the accident took place on 8.6.2010. Reasons assigned for drawing the conclusion are legally tenable. Accordingly, the findings on issues 1 and 2 are hereby upheld. 8. In regard to quantum of compensation, learned counsel for the appellant Shri Neerav Chitravansi, Advocate has vehemently and assertively argued that the accident took place on 8.6.2010. On the said date the rules in vogue permitted compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the death of a person in any untoward incident in the course of working of a railway. The Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (compensation) Amendment Rules 2016 (for short the Amendment Rules of 2016) which came into effect w.e.f. 1st January, 2017 would not be applicable therefore the compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- as awarded is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel has relied on judgment dated 25.4.2017 rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (2JJ) in Civil Appeal No. 5608 of 2017, arising out of SLP (C) No. 3970 of 2017 Kalandi Charan Sahoo and Another vs. General Manager, South-East Central Railways, Bilaspur. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents claimants to the contrary has argued that the amount of compensation payable to the claimants has been assessed as on the date of determination by the Railways Claims Tribunal on 28.4.2017. In such circumstances, the amount payable on 28.4.2017 is required to be awarded, and not the amount payable on the date of the incident. 10. For considering the issue raised on behalf of appellant railways, we need to consider the relevant provisions from the Railways Act and The Compensation Rules, 1990. 11. Sections 123 (c) (2), 124 A and 129 of the Railways Act read as under:- 123. Definitions. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) xxxxxx (b) xxxxxx (i) xxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxx (iii) xxxxxxx (iv) xxxxxxx (c) "untoward incident" means:- (1) xxxxxxx (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 124A. Compensation on account of untoward incidents. Definitions. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) xxxxxx (b) xxxxxx (i) xxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxx (iii) xxxxxxx (iv) xxxxxxx (c) "untoward incident" means:- (1) xxxxxxx (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. 124A. Compensation on account of untoward 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 injury 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 medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident. Explanation - For the purposes of this section "passenger" includes:- (i) a railway servant on duty. (ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for traveling, by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident. xxxxxxx 129. Power to make rules in respect of matters in this Chapter. (1) The Central Government may, by notification make rules to carry out the purposes of this Chapter. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :- (a) the compensation payable for death. (b) the nature of the injuries for which compensation shall be paid and the amount of such compensation. 12. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :- (a) the compensation payable for death. (b) the nature of the injuries for which compensation shall be paid and the amount of such compensation. 12. Rule 2 (1) (d) and (e), Rule 3(1), Rule 4, of the Compensation Rules of 1990 and relevant portion of the Schedule brought in application w.e.f. 1.11.1997 and as was in effect on the date of the incident (8.6.2010) provided under Rule 3 read as under:- "2. Definitions: (1) In these rules, unless the content otherwise requires:- (a) xxxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxxx (d) "Schedule" means the schedule to these rules. (e) "untoward incident" means an incident defined in clause (c) of Section 123 of the Act. 3. Amount of compensation: (1) The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries shall be as specified in the Schedule. (2) xxxxxx (3) xxxxxx (4) xxxxxx 4. Limit of Compensation:- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 3, the total compensation payable under that rule shall in no case exceed Rupees [four] lakh (w.e.f. 1-11-1997) in respect of any one person. [Schedule [(See Rule 3)] Compensation Payable for Death and Injuries PART I Amount of compensation For death Rs. 4,00,000/-" PART II xxxxxx PART III xxxxxx 13. We also need to take into account notification issued by Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016 bearing GSR No. 1165(E) vide which the compensation amount as provided in the schedule was enhanced w.e.f. 1.1.2017. Relevant portion of the notification reads as under:- "MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (Railway Board) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 22nd, December, 2016 G.S.R. 1165(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 129 of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Railway Accidents and Untoward incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, namely:- 1. Short title and Commencement:- (1) These rules may be called the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 2016. (2) They shall come into force on the 1st day of January, 2017. 2. In the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in rule 3:- (i) in sub-rule (2), for the words "rupees four lakhs" the words "rupees eight lakhs" shall be substituted. (2) They shall come into force on the 1st day of January, 2017. 2. In the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in rule 3:- (i) in sub-rule (2), for the words "rupees four lakhs" the words "rupees eight lakhs" shall be substituted. (ii) in the second proviso to sub-rule (3) for the words "rupees eighty thousand", the words "rupees one lakh sixty thousand" shall be substituted." 3. In the said rules, in rule 4, for the words "rupees four lakhs" the words "rupees eight lakhs" shall be substituted. 4. xxxxx" 14. A composite reading of the above extracted provisions indicates that untoward incident has been defined under Section 123 of the Railways Act which includes accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124 A of the Railways Act provides for compensation to be awarded on account of untoward incident. Section 124 A provides that when in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, railway administration shall be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed, for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to a passenger as a result of such untoward incident. Section 129 of the Railways Act provides power to the Central Government to make rules by notification, including for compensation payable for death. 15. Rule 2 of the Compensation Rules, 1990 defines the Schedule and Untoward Incident. Untoward incident has been defined as per definition provided under Section 123 Clause (c) of the Railways Act. Rule 3 of the Compensation Rules, 1990 stipulates the compensation payable in respect of death or injuries as specified in the Schedule. 16. The amount of compensation has not been couched in the Railways Act, rather it has been postulated that the compensation would be payable as prescribed. Under the circumstances amount of compensation is prescribed from time to time by virtue of notifications issued by the Ministry of Railways. Compensation has been prescribed under Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Compensation Rules, 1990, the relevant of which would be notifications dated 25.10.1997 and 22.12.2016. By virtue of notification dated 25.10.1997 it was provided that for the death of a person in an untoward incident, w.e.f. 1.11.1997 the compensation would be 4,00,000/- (instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- earlier provided). Compensation has been prescribed under Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Compensation Rules, 1990, the relevant of which would be notifications dated 25.10.1997 and 22.12.2016. By virtue of notification dated 25.10.1997 it was provided that for the death of a person in an untoward incident, w.e.f. 1.11.1997 the compensation would be 4,00,000/- (instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- earlier provided). Under notification dated 22.12.2016 it was prescribed that w.e.f. 1.1.2017 for the death of a person in an untoward incident the compensation would be Rs. 8,00,000/- (instead of Rs. 4,00,000/- as provided vide notification dated 25.10.1997) . The incident at hand occurred after 1.11.1997 on 8.6.2010, however, the compensation amount came to be considered at the time of passing of award after 1.1.2017, hence the issue raised by virtue of this petition. 17. Shri Neerav Chitravansi, Advocate learned counsel for the Railways has argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide the impugned award is without jurisdiction and beyond the Compensation Rules, 1990 read with provisions of the Railways Act to which a reference has been made hereinabove. It has been contended that only for an untoward incident that took place after 1.1.2017, (the date from which notification dated 22.12.2016 came into force) compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- would be permissible and not in relation to the untoward incidents that took place earlier in point of time. 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rathi Menon vs. Union of India, (2001) 3 SCC 714 has considered this very issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said judgment dealt with an appeal preferred against judgment rendered by Kerala High Court in Union of India vs. Thankaraj, (2000) AIR Kerala 91. The Kerala High Court was considering two sets of appeals. In one set of appeals the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench granted compensation by applying the amended Rules for an incident that took place earlier. In the other set of appeals the Tribunal applied un-amended provisions. It is under these circumstances that the bunch of appeals were decided while considering common question of law- whether in respect of death that occurred before amendment Rule of 1997 came into force, the enhanced rate of compensation under the amended Rules can be made applicable. In the other set of appeals the Tribunal applied un-amended provisions. It is under these circumstances that the bunch of appeals were decided while considering common question of law- whether in respect of death that occurred before amendment Rule of 1997 came into force, the enhanced rate of compensation under the amended Rules can be made applicable. The Kerala High Court while interpreting the rules held that enhanced rate of compensation as per the amendment which came into force on 1.11.1997 can be applied only in respect of claims arising for accidents or untoward incident, as the case may be, which occurred on or after 1.11.1997. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while considering the issue allowed the appeals in the following terms (relevant paras 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33 and 36):- "15. Now we have to see Section 124-A which is the provision imposing liability on the Railway Administration to pay compensation to the victims of untoward incidents. Its proviso excludes from its purview persons who committed or attempted to commit suicide, persons who inflicted injury by self, and those who committed criminal acts or acts done in a state of intoxication or insanity and also the cases affected by any natural cause of disease etc. After excluding such persons and cases, Section 124-A can be read thus: "124-A. 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 injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:" 16. The liability of the Railway Administration in such a case would be to pay compensation, but the extent of such compensation is "as may be prescribed" which means prescribed by the rules made under the Act. Section 129 of the Act empowered the Central Government to make such rules. 17. The liability of the Railway Administration in such a case would be to pay compensation, but the extent of such compensation is "as may be prescribed" which means prescribed by the rules made under the Act. Section 129 of the Act empowered the Central Government to make such rules. 17. The Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (for short "the Rules") were made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 129 of the Act. Rule 3(1) says that the amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries shall be as specified in the Schedule. The Rules as well as the Schedule were amended with effect from 1-11-1997. After the amendment Rule 3(2) reads thus: "3. (2) The amount of compensation payable for an 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 four lakhs." 18. xxxxx 19. xxxxx 20. Before the said amendment of the Rules and the Schedule which came into effect on 1-11-1997 the above amounts were respectively two lakhs (instead of rupees four lakhs) and 1.40 lakhs (instead of 3.20 lakhs) and one lakh (instead of two lakhs). Such amounts were revised by the Central Government in 1990. The revision of the rates was made after 8 years and thus the new rates were incorporated by amending the Schedule. 21. xxxxxx 22. xxxxxx 23. The collocation of the words "as may be prescribed" in Section 124-A of the Act is to be understood as to mean "as may be prescribed from time to time." The relevance of the date of untoward incident is that the right to claim compensation from the Railway Administration would be acquired by the injured on that date. The statute did not fix the amount of compensation, but left it to be determined by the Central Government from time to time by means of rules. This delegation to the Central Government indicates that it was difficult for Parliament to fix the amount because compensation amount is a varying phenomenon and the Government would be in a far advantageous position to ascertain what would be the just and reasonable compensation in respect of a myriad different kinds of injuries by taking into account very many factors. This delegation to the Central Government indicates that it was difficult for Parliament to fix the amount because compensation amount is a varying phenomenon and the Government would be in a far advantageous position to ascertain what would be the just and reasonable compensation in respect of a myriad different kinds of injuries by taking into account very many factors. What the legislature wanted was that the victim of the accident must be paid compensation and the amount must represent a reality which means the amount should be a fair and reasonable compensation. The Government has the better where withal to ascertain and fix such amount. It is for the said reason that Parliament left it to the Government to discharge that function. Sections 124 and 124-A of the Act speak the same language that "the Railway Administration shall be liable to pay compensation." As pointed above, it is the liability of the Railway Administration to "pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed." Hence the time of ordering payment is more important to determine as to what is the extent of the compensation which is prescribed by the rules to be disbursed to the claimant. 24. In this context a reference to Section 129 of the Act appears useful. The Central Government is empowered by the said provision to make rules by notification "to carry out the purposes of this Chapter". It is evident that one of the purposes of this chapter is that the injured victims in railway accidents and untoward incidents must get compensation. Though the word "compensation" is not defined in the Act or in the Rules it is the giving of an equivalent or substitute of equivalent value. In Black's Law Dictionary, "compensation" is shown as "Equivalent in money for a loss sustained; or giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise conferred; or recompense in value for some loss, injury or service especially when it is given by statute." It means when you pay the compensation in terms of money it must represent, on the date of ordering such payment, the equivalent value. 25. xxxxxxx 26. The asinine consequence of accepting the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the High Court can be demonstrated through an illustration. 25. xxxxxxx 26. The asinine consequence of accepting the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the High Court can be demonstrated through an illustration. If a person sustained injury as described in Rule 3(2) of the Rules, in an accident in a train on 31-10-1997 and another person sustains the same kind of injury in another accident in a train the next day i.e. 1-11-1997, when both persons made separate applications before the same Claims Tribunal for compensation, the Tribunal can award Rs 2 lakhs only in the first case and Rs 4 lakhs in the second case. What a woeful discrimination, if not a glaringly unfair differentiation. See the interval between the two accidents of identical features. It was only a few hours, but the difference in the compensation amount is enormously high. Any court should avert an interpretation which would lead to such a manifestly absurd fallout, unless the court is compelled otherwise by any mandatory provision. 27. Why the Central Government decided to make such a vast variation in the amount of compensation while exercising the powers conferred by Section 129 of the Act? It cannot be conceived that the Government wanted to make a discrimination between those victims who suffered an injury in an accident prior to 1-11-1997 and those who suffered an identical injury in a similar accident on or after that date. The raison d' tre for making such variation is easily discernible. The Central Government wanted to update the compensation amount. Rupee value is not an unchanging unit in the monetary system. Students of economic history know that currency value remained static before the Second World War. But the post-World War II witnessed the new phenomenon of vast fluctuations in money value of currency notes in circulation in each nation. When the US Dollar registered a steep upward rise, currencies in many other countries made downward slip. What was the value of one hundred rupees twenty years ago is vastly different from what it is today. This substantial change has caused its impact on the cost of living also. 28. xxxxxxx 29. The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane also. What was the value of one hundred rupees twenty years ago is vastly different from what it is today. This substantial change has caused its impact on the cost of living also. 28. xxxxxxx 29. The unjust consequence resulting from the interpretation which the Division Bench placed can be demonstrated in another plane also. If a person who sustained injury in a railway accident or in an untoward incident was disabled from making an application immediately and he makes the application a few years hence, is he to get the compensation in terms of the money value which prevailed on the date of the accident? Suppose a Tribunal wrongly dismissed a claim after a few years of filing the application and the claimant approaches the High Court in appeal. As it happens quite often now, some High Courts could take up such an appeal only after the lapse of many years and if the appeal is decided in favour of the claimant after so many years, what a pity if the amount awarded is only in terms of the figure indicated on the date of the accident. 30. From all these, we are of the definite opinion that the Claims Tribunal must consider what the Rules prescribed at the time of making the order for payment of the compensation. 31. xxxxxxx 32. xxxxxxx 33. The scheme of the provision under the WC Act is materially different from the scheme indicated in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act. In the former, compensation payable is fixed in the Act itself through the Schedule incorporated thereto. Section 4 of the WC Act shows that such compensation is to be linked with the monthly wages of the workman concerned. It also provides that the liability to pay compensation on the employer would arise not when the Commissioner passes the order but on the date of sustaining the injury itself. A provision is made in Section 4-A of the WC Act that where any employer is in default of paying the compensation due within one month the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay not only interest but in appropriate cases a penalty ranging up to 50% of the amount payable. The said scheme cannot be equated with the scheme in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, as the principles involved have differences. 34. xxxxxxx 35. xxxxxxx 36. The said scheme cannot be equated with the scheme in Chapter XIII of the Railways Act, as the principles involved have differences. 34. xxxxxxx 35. xxxxxxx 36. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. We direct the Railway Administration to pay the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the appellant (if not already paid) within three months from today together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 27-6-1997 (the date of the order passed by the Claims Tribunal)." 19. To be fair to learned counsel for the appellant we have dealt with the contents of judgment rendered in Kalandi Charan Sahoo's case. In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India did not consider the effect and implication of the provisions of the Railways Act, Compensation Rules, 1990 and the amended provisions, as noticed hereinabove. Under the circumstances, it cannot be termed as a judgment on the legal issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant. 20. In the case of Rathi Menon the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as is evident from the above extracted portion, has dealt with all the relevant provisions from the Railways Act, Compensation Rules, 1990 and the amendment to the Compensation Rules, 1990. The logic behind providing separate Rules and the provision for paying compensation 'to such extent as may be prescribed' has been discussed. It has been held in clear and unequivocal terms that Claims Tribunal must assess the compensation as the rules prescribe at the time of making the order of payment of compensation. It has been held that the date of accident/untoward incident will not be relevant. The compensation has to be assessed as per the Compensation Rules, 1990 as prescribed at the time of making order of payment of the compensation. 21. In view of the above, the question of law as framed by us is answered in the affirmative. 22. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The compensation as awarded vide the impugned award by the Railway Claims Tribunal is in accordance with the law. 23. We have taken into account the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India provided 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of order passed by the claims Tribunal. 24. The appeal is hereby dismissed. The compensation as awarded vide the impugned award by the Railway Claims Tribunal is in accordance with the law. 23. We have taken into account the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India provided 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of order passed by the claims Tribunal. 24. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we provide that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation amount along with interest @ 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal (9.8.2010) till the date of payment. The compensation amount be apportioned as provided by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation as awarded be deposited with the Railway Claims Tribunal within a period of 70 days from today. Railway Claims Tribunal shall ensure disbursement of the amount at the earliest.