IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 19 of 2004()
1. SAIDALAVI, KALLUDUMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB
For Respondent :SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU,SR.SC.RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :07/07/2009
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.F.A. NO: 19 OF 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th Day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Joseph Francis J.
This appeal under Section 23 o f the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act is filed by the applicant in O.A.No. 58 of 2001 on the file of the
Railways Claims Tribunal, Ernakualm. The respondent herein is the
respondent in that application, which was filed under Section 16 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows. Appellant was a
traveller in Train No:6602, Mangalapuram Chennai Mail from
Kozhikode to Pothannur on 22.6.2001 and this Train met with an
accident by falling down from the Kadalundi over bridge. Due to this
accident, the appellant sustained crush injuries to his knee right leg and
contaminated lascerated wound on the right leg and comminuted
fracture lower right tibia, for curing of which, he underwent medical as
well as surgical treatment in the Baby Memorial Hospital, Calicut from
22.6.2001 to 8.8.2001. During the course of his medical treatment,
amputation below knee right leg was done. Appellant is feeling pain
M.F.A. NO: 19 OF 2004
: 2 :
from the amputated portion of right leg now and then. Now he is
physically disabled. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.
3. The respondent filed reply statement admitting the accident
and contents that the compensation claimed is excessive. In the
Railway Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1, P2 and P2(a) were
marked. The Railway Tribunal, on considering evidence, passed an
award in favour the applicant for realisation of Rs.2,40,000/- from the
respondent with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition i.e.,
2.11.01 till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied by the quantum of
compensation, the appellant filed this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the
accident the right leg of the appellant was amputated, below knee and
he also suffered a fracture of calcaneum of his left leg. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submitted that both these injuries are
severe and grievous in nature. The Tribunal ought to have granted the
entire amount claimed by the appellant.
6. The appellant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposes that as
M.F.A. NO: 19 OF 2004
: 3 :
a result of the accident, his right leg was cut and removed above knee,
but some stumps remained extended and that the calcaneum of left leg
was fractured. PW1 deposes that his movement is arrested because
of amputation of right leg and fracture of the calcaneum of left foot.
PW1 deposes that before the accident he was a Salesman at ABC
Shop, Calicut dealing with automobile spares. His monthly
remuneration was Rs.1,200/- After the accident, he lost his
employment. Ext. P1 is the discharge summary issued from Baby
Memmorial hospital, Calicut, which shows that due to the accident the
appellant sustained comminuted fracture on right tibia and fracture of
calcaneum of left leg. Ext.P1 further shows that below knee
amputation was done on 30.6.01. It is true that the appellant has not
produced any disability certificate from any qualified Orthopaedic
Surgeon certifying his physical disability.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that remanding
of the case for assessing of disability will cause unnecessary delay.
Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the decision
reported in Abdul Kareem V. Union of India (ILR 2008(3) Kerala
M.F.A. NO: 19 OF 2004
: 4 :
127), in which it was held that any accident depriving the injured from
all capacity to do any work, Rs.4,00,000/- is the compensation payable
to the injured on account of the injury, which deprived him of capacity
to do any work under Rule 3(2) of the Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule, 1990. From Ext.P1
discharge certificate it is clear that the appellant cannot do normal
avocation without the help of others.
8. Considering the medical evidence on record, it is evident
that apart from amputation of right leg below knee, there is fracture of
calcaneum on left leg of the appellant. Since both these injuries jointly
prevent the appellant from doing any work in a reasonable manner, we
are of the view that this case will come under Rule 3(2) of the Railway
Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule 1990
amended with effect from November 1997.
It reads as follows:
“The amount of compensation payable for injury
not specified in 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 (rupee four lakhs).”
M.F.A. NO: 19 OF 2004
: 5 :
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
of the view that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.4,00,000/- as total
compensation with 6% interest from the date of application.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is
allowed to get an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as total compensation with
6% interest from the date of the application till the date of realisation
from the respondent. The parties are directed to suffer their respective
cost in this appeal.
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.
dl/