The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claimant was entitled to a higher compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under the Rules of 1990, which enhanced the limit of compensation for non-schedule injuries to Rs. 40,000/-.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the order of the Railway Accidents Claims tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in T. A. No. 389 of 1990, whereby, the tribunal has disposed of the appellant's application for claim under Railway accidents Claims Tribunal Act. The claim was originally filed before the Lucknow Bench of the railway Claims Tribunal and thereafter, was transferred to the Bangalore bench.

( 2 ) THE claimant in this claim petition has alleged that he was a bona fide passenger in Karnataka Express which was involved in accident at lalithpur on 18-4-1989, and that he had sustained injuries as a result of the accident. He made a claim to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- for injuries and rs. 500/- for loss of articles. The claim petition has been contested on the ground that the quantum of compensation claimed was excessive.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal after considering the material on record opined that ends of justice will be met by awarding the claimant compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ -. It further held that loss of articles has not been established, so claim for loss of articles was rejected and claim for compensation for injuries was awarded to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, with a direction to the Railways to pay that amount within three months. Feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the claimant-petitioner has come up in appeal.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri T. N. Viswanath, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Sanjegowda, Counsel for the Railways. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in this accident, the claimant had suffered fracture of mandible and right temporo-mandibular joint dislocation. He further submitted that the claimant had to remain in Hospital from 27-4-1989 and was discharged on 15-5-1989. Learned Counsel contended that awarding Rs. 10,000/- was insufficient, as the claimant had to incur expenditure to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- in medical treatment and further his mouth does not fully open and that in munching, he gets pain in temple and that is permanent feature. He submitted that the claimant was sportsman, but on account of the injuries, he has lost the proficiency and could not participate in games like Kabaddi. He submitted that when the Tribunal has been satisfied about all these factors, it should have awarded compensation for injury, pain and suffering and the medical expenditure to which the appellant was entitled. It should have been more than Rs. 10,000/-, and he suggested, that at least Rs. 30,000/- should have been awarded as compensation. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Railways, Sri Sanjegowda, holding brief for the learned counsel for the Railways, contended that the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, that has been awarded as compensation is sufficient, there is no permanent disability caused to the claimant. The compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal is in consonance with the material on record and it does not require to be enhanced.

( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsels for both the parties. Dr. C. M. Koshi, has been examined as P. W. 1 in this case. He has deposed that he was Assistant Professor in Plastic Surgery and was attached to St. John's Medical College Hospital. He examined the appellant on 27-4-1989 and admitted him for treatment of injuries which the injured was alleged to have sustained in the train accident. Dr. Koshi states:"i found (1) fracture of mandible (left body) and (2) right temporo-mandibular joint dislocation. Open reduction of temporo-mandibular joint and open reduction of fracture mandible and upper and lower arch bar fixation with subsequent inter-dental wiring. He was discharged on 15-5-1989. The doctor stated that Ex. P-1 is the summary of the case, x-rays have been taken and Ex. P-2 the series do confirm the clinical evaluation. The doctor has further stated that "he does not now suffer from any permanent disability, even though there are grievous injuries".

( 6 ) DOCTOR's statement revea