The absence of a post-mortem report does not preclude the entitlement of claimants to compensation for injuries sustained in an untoward incident under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - By way of the present appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the appellants/claimants have sought modification of order dated 16.09.2020 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in Case No. OA/(IIu)/DLI/53/2019. The appellants have also sought direction to the respondent to pay the compensation awarded alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization.

2. Mr. Rajan Sood, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that Sh. Suresh Gupta died in an 'untoward incident' on 06.09.2018, when he fell at the railway station and sustained injuries, to which he succumbed on 22.10.2018. It was contended that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal erroneously held Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004367 that in absence of post-mortem report, the death was not relatable to the injuries sustained by Sh. Suresh Gupta. In support of his contentions, learned counsel referred to the medical documents placed on record as well as the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Noorjahan and Another reported as 2004 SCC OnLine Utt 246.

3. Per contra, Ms. Jatinder Kaur, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent, opposed the prayer for enhancement of compensation awarded by contending that there was a gap of more than one and half month between the date when injuries were sustained by deceased-Sh.Suresh Gupta and his death. She also submitted that the deceased was about 70 years of age.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the entire case record.

5. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal held the deceased to be a bonafide passenger, who suffered injuries in an 'untoward incident' which took place on 06.09.2018. While considering the contentions raised, it was observed that it cannot be inferred that the said 'untoward incident' had resulted into injuries causing death of Sh. Suresh Gupta.

6. A perusal of the medical record of the deceased would show that on 06.09.2018, an MLC was prepared at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi, wherein it was recorded that the injuries suffered were on account of fall from the train and the injured complained of pain in right side of the chest. Tenderness in right shoulder was also noted and the patient was referred to surgery, neurosurgery and Ortho Department. The deceased remained admitted in the Lok Nayak Hospital, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi (LNJP) from 08.09.2018 to 13.09.2018. In the Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/004367 discharge slip, it was noted that the injured had suffered blunt trauma chest B/L, hemoperitoneum, B/L subcutaneous emphysema and right inferior dislocation of shoulder. It was also noted that the deceased had undertaken B/L Tube Thoracostomy on 07.09.2018. At the time of discharge, Sh. Suresh Gupta's condition was noted as conscious and oriented.

7. The deceased had visited Dr. Pankaj Anand, Consultant Orthopaedics & Joint Replacement Surgeon, on 19.09.2018, who had advised certain medications. Thereafter, on 13.10.2018, the deceased had again visited Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital, Ashok Vihar, Delhi on OPD-basis, where he complained of chest pain and was advised X-ray.

8. On 22.10.2018, Sh. Suresh Gupta was taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi in casualty in unconscious state, where no respiratory and heart activity was seen. The ECG showed straight line and Sh. Suresh Gupta was declared as brought dead.

9. In the present case, the Tribunal decided the issues of deceased having been a bonafide passenger and the accident having been an untoward incident in favour of the claimants. However, holding that the injuries sustained by the deceased in untoward incident could not be said to be the cause of his death, it granted compensation only for non-scheduled injuries (fractures of ribs and dislocation of shoulder) and denied death compensation.

10. The Tribunal based its conclusi