SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 5510

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dharmesh Sharma, J.
Kuldeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
FAO 37 of 2021
Decided On : 04-12-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima Sood and Ms. Megha Sood, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Mohit Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Rule 3(3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules requires each distinct injury to be assessed separately for compensation, and the nature and extent of the injuries should be considered in determining the appropriate compensation.

Headnote:

Delay Condonation - Railway Accident - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [RCT Act] - Section 23 - Rule 3(3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules

Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to being illiterate and suffering serious fractures. The appeal was against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal regarding compensation for injuries sustained in a train accident.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order was contrary to law as it did not assess each distinct injury separately for compensation, as required by Rule 3(3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules. The court set aside the order and awarded a total statutory compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest.

Issues: The issues revolved around the assessment of compensation for the appellant's injuries, the interpretation of Rule 3(3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, and the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Railway Claims Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that each distinct injury should be assessed separately for compensation, as mandated by Rule 3(3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules. The court also considered the nature and extent of the injuries in determining the appropriate compensation.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was awarded a total statutory compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest. The compensation already paid was to be adjusted, and the remaining amount was to be paid within a specified period.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 3085/2021 (Delay of 400 days in filing)

1. This application is moved on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 400 days in filing of the present appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application and considering that the appellant is an illiterate person, hailing from an impoverished background whose legal rights have been infringed and also for the fact that the appellant suffered serious fractures on his face, the delay is condoned.

3. The application stands disposed of.

FAO 37/2021

4. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 [RCT Act] seeking setting aside/quashing of the impugned order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal [RCT].

5. In a nutshell, the appellant was injured while travelling from train as a bonafide passenger on 27.11.2017 from Delhi Azadpur to Sandal Kalan, holding a valid Monthly Season Ticket [MST] no. 07829463. He fell out of the moving train at Narela Railway Station and suffered grievous injuries all over his body in addition to injuries sustained on his head and face.

6. The learned RCT vide impugned order/judgment dated 25.04.2019 while considering the issue of amount of compensation payable and relief, made the following observations:

"3. As per DD No.14B dated 29.01.2018 (Ex.A-2), it has been brought out that the injured (applicant) was firstly taken to Raja Harish Chander Memorial Hospital, Narela; thereafter was taken to ESI Hospital, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi; thereafter was taken to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi; and lastly was taken to FIMS Hospital, Sonipat. The discharge summary of FIMS Hospital (Ex.A-5) shows that the injured (applicant) was brought there on 28.11.2017 at 12.31 p.m. and was discharged on 02.12.2017 at 09.35 a.m.; with diagnosis of "fracture ZMC right side, fracture palate and fracture coronoid, process of right side of mandible and multiple tooth fracture". The nature and extent of injuries brought out in the aforesaid discharge summary are all non-scheduled injuries, localized in the jaw, palate and face. The quantum of compensation is, therefore, to be decided by the Tribunal taking into account the principles stated in Rule 3(3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules.

4. The injured appeared as AW-1 before this Tribunal on 14.03.2019 and was cross-examined. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he sustained injuries only on his face and there was no other injury on any other part of his body. He also deposed that two months later to the incident, he was in a position to join back his duty and that there has been no problem faced by him in performing his duty. It can, therefore, be inferred that the nature and extent of injuries sustained by him have not resulted in any permanent impairment/disability and were of temporary nature, which have been heeled with proper treatment. Nonetheless considering the fact that the applicant was hospitalized in different hospitals for about five days, he must have suffered pain in moving his jaws and palate in the initial phrases of his suffering and would have also incurred expenditure in different hospitals, a quantum of Rs.50,000/- for the aforesaid non-scheduled injuries is reckoned to be a reasonable, fair and adequate compensation. Thus, the applicant is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the aforesaid non-scheduled injuries. Issue Nos.3 & 4 are answered accordingly.

Conclusion:

ORDER

5. There shall be an award of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% (Nine per cent) per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment. Having regard to the social and economic status and level of literacy of the applicant, I believe that the applicant has the means of managing his own finances. I make no direction for retention of any portion of the amount of compensation. As such, the entire amount of compensation shall be deposited in his Saving Bank A/c at or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top