Union Of India vs Sarita on 4 November, 2009

FAO No. 3821 of 2008                                                                  1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH
                                         --

                                  FAO No. 3821 of 2008
                                  Date of decision: November 04, 2009


Union of India                                         ........ Appellant

              Versus

Sarita                                                   .......Respondent (s)


Coram:        Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
                       -.-

Present:      Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate
              for the appellant

              Mr. J S Virk, Advocate
              for respondent No. 1
                     -.-

         1.   Whether Reporters of local papers may be
              allowed to see the judgement?

         2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not?

         3.   Whether the judgement should be reported in
              the Digest?

Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

05.02.2008 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,

Chandigarh, vide which the respondent/applicant was awarded a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation on account of the disability suffered by her in

an accident in which the respondent/applicant sustained amputation of right

leg below knee with amputation of forefoot (left), which is a scheduled injury

as envisaged in the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
FAO No. 3821 of 2008 2

(Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997.

The appellant/Railway took a plea that the Railway

Administration is absolved of the liability as provided under Section 124-A

of the Railways Administration Act. However, under Section 124-A, the

Railway Administration is absolved in case of suicide or attempted suit, self

inflicted injury, own criminal act, any act committed in a state of intoxication

or insanity, any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment

unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said

untoward incidents.

The aforesaid controversy has been decided by this Court in the

case of ‘Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, New

Delhi v. Vivek Rana’, FAO No. 4463 of 2008, decided on 28.07.2009, vide

which it was held that such type of injuries suffered by the claimant do not

fall within the purview of Section 124-A of the Railway Administration Act.

In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of

decision rendered in FAO No. 4463 of 2008 being covered matter.

(Nirmaljit Kaur)
Judge
November 04, 2009
mohan