ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment/order dated 03.02.20211 passed by Railway Claim Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. OA (IIU)/RNC/2008/0045, whereby and whereunder the compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded in favour of respondent- Sri Narsing Prasad Ravidas. 2. As per the case of the claimant, he was serving as Assistant Sub Inspector in Railway Protection Force after his appointment on 23.03.1966, and on 03.02.1990, he suffered a railway accident in Train No.351 (Up) during course of his duty in which he sustained injuries over his person as his both hands and right leg were completely severed. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel that there is limit of Rs.4,00,000/- in case of death under Rule 3(3) of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, maximum compensation that can be given in case of injury is Rs.2,80,000/-. Learned Tribunal has however, awarded a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 21.04.2008. It is further argued that the claim application has been filed in 2008 i.e. after the delay of 18 years from the date of accident. 4. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that as per the notification dated 25.10.1997 issued by the Ministry of Railways, a schedule has been provided for compensation payable for the death and injury. Under this schedule, at Sl. No. 18 a maximum of Rs.2,80,000/- is admissible for amputation below hip with stump exceeding 5” in length measured from tip of great trenchanter but not beyond middle thigh and further under CL No. 22, for amputation below knee with stump exceeding 5”, maximum compensation is Rs.1,60,000/-. 5. It is contended that since this is a case of amputation below knee, the maximum compensation could not be awarded more than Rs.4,00,000/-. Reliance in this regard is placed on (2019) 3 SCC 572 (Union of Indian Vs. Rina Devi) Para 18 and 19 wherein it has been held that the liability will accrue on the date of the accident and the amount appliable as on the date will be the amount recoverable but the claimant will get interest from the date of accident till the payment at such rate has been considered just and fair from time to time. 6. 6. It is further argued that the accident took place in 1990 whereas the amended provision for compensation in the Railway Act was introduced in the year 1994. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimant that it is a beneficial piece of legislation and, therefore, the object of the legislature was to give retrospective effect to the amending Act providing for compensation in case of death and disability. Further, this issue was not raised earlier before the Tribunal. 8. In order to appreciate the issue at hand it shall be desirable to consider the statutory scheme under the Chapter XII of the Railways Act, 1989, (“the Act”)— Sections 113 to 122— which deals with accidents. Chapter XIII deals with the liability of railway administration for the death or injury to passengers due to accidents. Section 124 of the Act casts an obligation on the railways: Beginning with a non-obstante clause, the provision mandates that the railways is liable to pay compensation “to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only” for loss occasioned by a passenger's death because of such accident, and ‘for personal injury and loss’, etc. A person injured can apply under Section 125 of the Act to the Railway Claims Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). 9. Section 127 mandates that, subject to the rules governing the issue, the Tribunal will determine the rates of compensation payable to the injured person. Section 128, reads: Saving as to certain rights.—(l) The right of any person to claim compensation under section 124 [or section 124A] shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, [8 of 1923] or any other law for the time being in force; but no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the right of any person to claim compensation payable under any contract or scheme providing for payment of compensation for death or personal injury or for damage to property or any sum payable under any policy of insurance. 10. A person can claim compensation either under the Railways Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, or any other law for the time being in force. 10. A person can claim compensation either under the Railways Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, or any other law for the time being in force. But no person can claim compensation more than once, or before more than one forum, about the same accident. The provision is analogous to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. The Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 has been framed under Section 129 of the Railways Act, read with Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. As per Rule 3, the compensation payable regarding death or injuries is specified in the Schedule. Part II and Part III of the Schedule prescribe the compensation according to the injury sustained. Sub-Rule (2), however, specifies that if those parts have not covered a particular injury, the maximum compensation must be four lakh rupees, if the injury is such as to deprive a person “of all capacity to do any work”. The figure ‘four lakh’, was fixed in 1997. If the same accident causes more than one injury, compensation shall be paid for each such injury. But the total compensation for all such injuries shall not exceed Rs. 80,000/-. Indeed, emphatic is the statutory mandate in Rule 4 that despite Rule 3, the total compensation shall never exceed four lakh rupees to any one person. 12. In view of the above statutory scheme, at the outset the plea that since the accident took place in 1990, therefore subsequent amending rule and notification will not apply, is unsustainable in view of the ratio laid down in N. Parameswaran Pillai v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 306 . 13. Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 provides that amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries, shall be as per the schedule. Under sub-rule (2) the amount of compensation payable for an injury not specified in Part-II or Part-III of the schedule, which deprives a person of all capacity to do any work shall be Rs. Eight Lakhs (as per 2016 amendment). Further, under sub-rule (3) the amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury other than specified in the schedule, shall be such as the Claims Tribunal may after taking into consideration, besides other circumstances, determine to be reasonable. 14. As per the schedule notification of 2016, for amputation below knee at Sl. Eight Lakhs (as per 2016 amendment). Further, under sub-rule (3) the amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury other than specified in the schedule, shall be such as the Claims Tribunal may after taking into consideration, besides other circumstances, determine to be reasonable. 14. As per the schedule notification of 2016, for amputation below knee at Sl. 22 to Part III of Schedule-2 Rule 3 is Rs.3,20,000/-, and for loss of a hand or thumb and forefinger as per Sl. 4 to Part-II of the schedule is Rs. 4,80,000/-. 15. Facts of the case are not in dispute that the claimant /respondent was serving as Assistant Sub Inspector on 03.02.1990 met with railway accident during course of his official duty. As a consequence of accidental injury, his both hands and right leg below knee were cut and severed. 16. In this view of the matter, considering the disability suffered in the railway accident, award of compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. There is no infirmity in the impugned award. Misc. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending I. A., if any, stands disposed of.