Railway Claims Tribunal may amend compensation orders to release a deceased applicant’s share to the surviving dependent.

The petitioner and her husband, Iliyas Tamboli, claimed compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal for the death of their unmarried son in an alleged untoward railway incident.

Iliyas died while the claim was pending, but the Tribunal was not informed.

On 14 August 2024, the Tribunal awarded ₹8,00,000, allocating equal shares to the petitioner and Iliyas.

The petitioner later sought release of Iliyas’s share to her; the Tribunal rejected the application, holding that it could not modify its final judgment.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal could modify its final compensation order to release the deceased co-applicant’s allocated share to the petitioner

Whether, as the surviving parent and dependent of the deceased passenger, the petitioner could receive the entire compensation

Section 123(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 identifies a passenger’s parent or parents as dependants where the deceased passenger was unmarried; compensation under Section 124-A was therefore payable to the petitioner in her capacity as a dependent.

Under Section 18 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Tribunal is guided by natural justice and may regulate its procedure; Section 18(3), including clause (f), confers specified civil-court powers, including review of its decisions.

The Tribunal could also exercise power analogous to Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits correction of accidental slips or omissions.

In Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargaon Cooperative Housing Society, AIR 2008 SC 225, the Supreme Court explained that this power reflects the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit and supports correction of the record to reflect the true state of affairs;

Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan, (2003) 1 SCC 197, recognizes that Section 152 enables a court to give effect to the meaning and intention of its judgment.

The Tribunal had found both parents to be dependants and divided the award equally.

But because the deceased passenger was unmarried, the petitioner could have pursued the claim alone as his dependent had the father’s death been brought to the Tribunal’s attention; she would then have been entitled to the full ₹8,00,000.

The Tribunal’s refusal rested on an unduly narrow view that it lacked power to alter a final order.

In light of its statutory powers and the principles underlying Section 152 CPC, it could make the necessary correction and release the share allocated to the deceased co-applicant to the petitioner.

It allowed the petitioner’s miscellaneous application and directed the Tribunal to amend its judgment of 14 August 2024 to release to her the compensation share allocated to the deceased applicant, within 30 days of communication of the order.

Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.