JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, against by the judgment dated 20.07.2009, passed in TTU-50027/05, by learned Member Judicial, Railway Claims Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has passed an order for compensation to the extent of Rs.4.00 lakh, out of which Rs.1.00 lakh paid by Railway has to be deducted and a direction was given to the Railway Administration to pay rest amount of Rs.3.00 lakh, which would be paid in equal shares to the applicants by making a fixed deposit of Rs.1.5 lakhs each for a period of 5 years in a bank of their choice under intimation to this Tribunal. It was further directed that if the payment was not made within 2 months from today, 9% interest per annum shall be awarded from the date of Award. 3. Facts of the case before the Claims Tribunal in brief was that the applicants, while traveling Tr. No. 619 Gomoh-Chopan passenger on 09.11.2005, lost their two months child when the said train collided with a goods train causing the death of the child. As such, the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4.00 lakhs. The claimants had already received Rs.1.00 lakhs by way of ex-gratia amount. After filing of the claim application, the Railways filed their written statements. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the records, the learned Tribunal formulated the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:- (I) Was the deceased child a passenger by train 619 (Gomo-Chopan Passenger) on 09.11.2005? (II) Are the claimants entitled to any compensation? (III) Reliefs and costs? 4. In view of the exhibits and in view of the evidences led, it was inferred that there is no dispute that the claimants were having valid tickets and were bonafide passenger, as the deceased child was only two months old, no separate ticket was needed. Now, since the death was admitted and it was a case of collision between the two trains, the applicants were held entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs.4.00 lakh. The same was awarded but a deduction of Rs.1.00 lakh was made in view of the fact that already same was paid as ex-gratia amount. 5. Mr. Now, since the death was admitted and it was a case of collision between the two trains, the applicants were held entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs.4.00 lakh. The same was awarded but a deduction of Rs.1.00 lakh was made in view of the fact that already same was paid as ex-gratia amount. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the correctness of the award on the ground that there was no occasion to deduct Rs.1.00 lakh from the compensation awarded to the claimants. Mr. Jha argued that under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, it has been clearly mentioned regarding compensation. Ex-gratia payment is completely different from that of compensation. Mr. Jha placed heavy reliance on the judgment dated 10.03.2015 of this Hon’ble Apex Court passed in case of M.A. 90 of 2010 (Mahendra Prasad & Anr. Vs. Union of India) and argues that ex-gratia amount cannot be clubbed with the amount of compensation, which is required to be considered and paid under the provisions of Section 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It has been submitted that the Tribunal has erred in law while passing the aforesaid judgment, deducting the amount of ex-gratia payment, in view of law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further, it has been argued that the Claimants are also entitled for interest either from the date of filing of the appeal or from the date of accident, as per the law. 6. Mr. Jalisur Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railways vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Tribunal, as appellants are not entitled for the ex-gratia amount. However, learned counsel has no answer to the query made by this Court that in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment, how the deduction could have been made by the Tribunal. 7. Heard the parties. 8. It is settled principle of law that ex-gratia amount and compensation under the Railways Act are two different things and the ex-gratia payment is required to be paid additionally to the Claimants, since the death was due to collision with goods train, the Claimants were entitled for ex-gratia payment, which was paid by the Railway Authorities. Heard the parties. 8. It is settled principle of law that ex-gratia amount and compensation under the Railways Act are two different things and the ex-gratia payment is required to be paid additionally to the Claimants, since the death was due to collision with goods train, the Claimants were entitled for ex-gratia payment, which was paid by the Railway Authorities. After claiming in view of Sections 124 and 124-A of the Railways Act, they were considered and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.4.00 lakh with interest. Admittedly, the Claimants were entitled for compensation which has already been awarded to the tune of Rs.4.00 lakh. This Court is of the considered view that deduction in any was not permissible to the Tribunal in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC 5684 of 2012, in which the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1129 of 2008 was affirmed and a similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Now the plea taken by the learned counsel for the claimants that they are also entitled for interest from the date of filing or from the date of accident though interest has been awarded, it has been awarded from the date of judgment. The law is also well settled on the point of granting interest, whether it should be granted from the date of filing claim application or from the date of accident. In case of Union of India Vs. Rina Devi, reported (2018) 2 JBCJ 478 (SC), it has been clearly held that the Claimants are entitled for interest from the date of accident. Para-18 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below:- “18. As already observed, though this Court in Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi (supra) held that rate of interest has to be at the rate of 6% from the date of application till the date of the award and 9% thereafter and 9% rate of interest was awarded from the date of application in Mohamadi (supra), rate of interest has to be reasonable rate at par with accident claim cases. We are of the view that in absence of any specific statutory provision, interest can be awarded from the date of accident itself when the liability of the Railways arises upto the date of payment, without any difference in the stages. Legal position in this regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Conflicting views stand resolved in this manner.” 9. The order of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that Claimants are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.4.00 lakhs along with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal from the date of accident. 10. Resultantly, the instant Misc. Appeal stands disposed of. 11. Office is directed to return the LCR to the Court concerned at the earliest.