IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 132 of 2005()
1. PRASAD.A.V. S/O.SANKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, OWNING SOUTHERN RAILWAY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :10/02/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.F.A.No.132 OF 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
The appellant is the claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ernakulam Bench. He had claimed Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation for the
injuries sustained by him in a train accident that occurred at Kadalundi
on June 22, 2001 involving Mangalore-Chennai Mail. The Tribunal
after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,
awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum
from January 30, 2002 till date of payment to the appellant/claimant.
The appellant has preferred this appeal calling in question the adequacy
of the award.
2. When this appeal came up for consideration today, learned
counsel submits that the appellant is even now undergoing treatment
for the injuries sustained by him and that he has been regularly
incurring expenses for such treatment. He has produced several
medical bills along with I.A.Nos.1430/2007, 2897/2007, 271/2010 and
I.A.No.382/2010. The aggregate sum of these medical bills will
MFA.No.132/2005 Page numbers
approximately come to Rs.15,000/-.
3. However, the main grievance of the appellant is that the
huge expenses that the appellant had to meet in connection with his
treatment were not taken into account by the Tribunal when the award
was passed. Learned counsel points out that large number of medical
bills were produced before the Tribunal . Ext.A3, the Accident Register
cum wound certificate, Ext.A4 release card issued by the Medical
College Hospital and Ext.A5 treatment certificate, Ext.A6 medical
certificate etc. and particularly Ext.A11 disability certificate, will show
that the appellant had sustained very grievous injuries. He had to
spend nearly more than Rs. 75,000/- for medical expenses alone. But
all these aspects were not taken into account by the Tribunal at all.
4. A perusal of the award will show that Tribunal had
quantified the compensation ” considering the fractures and ulnar nerve
palsy, his prolonged treatment at various hospitals, his loss of pay , his
young age, the pain and mental agony”. Such an approach made by the
Tribunal, in our view, is unsustainable to say the least.
5. Therefore we are satisfied that the Tribunal has to be
directed to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh award in accordance
MFA.No.132/2005 Page numbers
with law. Necessarily, the Tribunal has to keep in view the prolonged
treatment including four surgeries that were allegedly undergone by the
appellant, with reference to the medical records. While doing so, the
additional documents that have been produced by the appellant before
this court shall also be taken into consideration. In that view of the
matter, the impugned award is set aside.
6. The case is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration
in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall afford sufficient
opportunity to the appellant to adduce further evidence, if he so
chooses. The Tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of the case
as early as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The appellant shall appear before the Tribunal on April 5, 2010.
The Registry shall forward the additional documents produced by the
appellant to the Tribunal in a sealed cover along with a copy of this
judgment.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
sv.
MFA.No.132/2005 Page numbers