Raman, J.

Appellant was the applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal, who sustained severe injuries, as a result of an accident occurred while traveling as a passenger in a train. While he was traveling from Trichur to Ernakulam on 1.7.1999 by Jammu Tawi-Kanyakumari Express, and when the train was negotiating through Edappally and when he was about to go to bath room, as a result of a jerk, he was thrown out from the train and sustained injuries to his head and chest. He claimed compensation of an amount of Rs.4 lakhs with interest. The Railways, on the other hand, contended that he was not a bona fide passenger in the train. It was further contended that the records pertaining to the incident was not available at Eadppally railway station. It was alleged that the accident, if any happened, was due to his careless and negligent act, and hence, the railway is absolved from liability to pay compensation, as provided under Section 124A (b) of the Railways Act.

2. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. The evidence consists of oral testimony of Pws.1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A24 marked on the side of the appellant. There was no evidence on the side of the Railways.

3. The Tribunal found that the applicant was a bona fide passenger and that he sustained injuries due to an untoward incident. At the same time, it also found in paragraph 9 that the fall of the applicant from the moving train was on account of hit of an electric pole which was hanging and hitting the boggy.

4. Strictly speaking, the accident as found to have occurred does not fall under Section 124A of the Railways Act, for short 'the Act', as an untoward incident as defined under Section 123 of the Act. Therefore, the accident could only come under Section 124 of the Act.

5. Be that it may, coming to the compensation awardable, it depends upon the nature of the injuries sustained by the applicant. Ext.A7 discharge certificate issued from the Lisie Hospital, Ernakulam, clearly reveal that the applicant suffered severe head injuries, fracture on right ribs 4th and 7th and (L) 4th and odontoid. It was also proved in evidence that he was admitted in the Lisie Hospital as an inpatient from 1.7.99 to 15.9.99 and he underwent treatment at various hospitals thereafter, as evident from Exts.A8 to A22. Ext.A8 is a medical certificate issued by the Lisie Hospital, which shows that applicant was intuited and ventilated for five days, Tracheotomy was done on 6.7.99 and he has also inter costals drainage for right pneumothorax. ENT consultation was done for regurgitation of fluids.

6. Odontoid process, as per the dictionary meaning, is projecting part of a vertebra shaped like a tooth. There was a fracture of odontoid, as revealed from the documentary evidence produced and as found by the Tribunal.

7. If so, the next question could arise as to whether such an injury will fall as a scheduled injury or is it a non-scheduled injury. The Tribunal found that though the injuries sustained were of serious in nature, they do not fall under the scheduled injuries. It is contended that the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is wrong. According to the appellant's counsel, the applicant has suffered more than one injury and the compensation for each of which are separately prescribed under the schedule and that he is entitled for compensation so prescribed for each of such injuries. So however, the maximum compensation for all the injuries put together cannot exceed Rs.4 lakhs. It is his further case that the injuries sustained by him will fall under Item No. 5 of Part II of Schedule, i.e., "Severe facial disfigurement", as also Item No. 26 of Part III, i.e., "Fracture of Spine without paraplegia".

8. Though it is contended that there was severe facial disfigurement, except to prove that he has undergone some surgery, where there was actually any disfigurement is not seen proved in evidence. The Doctor is not examined in the case. Whether or not there was facial disfigurement is