Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N.N. Mithal, J.
KHALIFA PASWAN — Appellant
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) — Respondent
Decided on : 11-12-1987
The phrase 'all capacity to do any work' in Rule 6(2) of the Railway Accident Compensation Amendment Rule, 1974, means total loss of capacity, not just the inability to do the work that the person was doing before the injury.
Headnote:
RAILWAY ACCIDENT COMPENSATION - RULE 6(2) - INTERPRETATION - 'ALL CAPACITY TO DO ANY WORK' - MEANING - TOTAL LOSS OF CAPACITY REQUIRED - NOT WHERE PERSON RETAINS SOME CAPACITY TO DO SOME WORK - RULE 3 - SCOPE - ENLARGES SCOPE IN RELATION TO INJURIES - COMPENSATION CAN BE AWARDED FOR INJURIES NOT ENUMERATED IN PART II OR III OR SCHEDULE - BUT CLAIMS COMMISSIONER TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO DETERMINE REASONABLE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was injured in a train accident and suffered 11 injuries, including a wrist drop in his right hand. He was awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000 by the Claims Commissioner, which he appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant was not entitled to compensation under Rule 6(2) of the Railway Accident Compensation Amendment Rule, 1974, as he had not lost all capacity to do any work. However, the court found that the appellant was entitled to additional compensation under Rule 3 for the other injuries he had suffered.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation under Rule 6(2) of the Railway Accident Compensation Amendment Rule, 1974? 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to additional compensation under Rule 3 for the other injuries he had suffered?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to compensation under Rule 6(2) because he had not lost all capacity to do any work. The court interpreted the phrase 'all capacity to do any work' to mean total loss of capacity, not just the inability to do the work that the person was doing before the injury. 2. The court held that the appellant was entitled to additional compensation under Rule 3 for the other injuries he had suffered. The court found that Rule 3 enlarged the scope of injuries for which compensation could be awarded, and that the Claims Commissioner should have taken into consideration the totality of circumstances to determine a reasonable amount of compensation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part and enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant to Rs. 14,000.
JUDGMENT :
N.N. Mithal, J.—103 UP Delux Express train met with an accident near Naini, Allahabad on the night of 10th October, 1977 causing death and injuries to a large number of passengers. The appellant was one of the injured of that ill fated train'. Soon after the accident he was first admitted to Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad at about 6 AM where his injuries were recorded which are 11 in number. From that hospital he was later on shifted to Swamp Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad at about 2 PM and remained hospitalised till 23rd October, 1977 as an indoor patient He remained under the treatment of Dr. N K. Mehndi Ratta who on examination found that he was suffering from wrist drop besides other injuries.
2. When the matter was taken up before the Adhoc Claims Commissioner he found that the wrist drop had developed due to injuries suffered by him in the accident and this finding is no longer under challenge The Claims Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs 10,000/- by way of compensation and feeling aggrieved this appeal has been filed by the injured.
3. Sri S.U. Khan, who argued the appeal for the appellant, submitted that the Claims Commissioner should have awarded compensation under Rule 6(2) of the Railway Accident Compensation Amendment Rule, 1974. His submission was that under that rule even though the injury of the nature, referred to in part-2 of the schedule may not have been caused to an injured, yet if any other injury caused to him was such as to deprive him of 'all capacity' to do 'any' work the same compensation would be awardable as is set out in part II of the schedule i.e. Rs. 50,000/-. The argument is countered by Sri Lalji Sinha, appearing for the Railway and his submission was that before the advantage of Sub-Rule 2 can be taken it must be established that the injured had lost all capacity to do any work. He laid emphasis on the word 'all' and 'any' occurring in the rule. In order to appreciate the respective argument it would be better to quote the relevant portions of Rule 6 as under:
6. Amount of Compensation (1) The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries shall be specified in the Schedule.
(2) The amount of compensation payable for an injury not specified in Part II of the Schedule but which, in the opinion of the Claims Commissioner, is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do any work, shall be rupees fifty thousands.
(3) The amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury (other than in injury specified in the Schedule or referred to in Sub-rule (2) resulting in pain and sufferings, shall be such as the Claims Commissioner may, after taking into considering all the circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable. Provided that if more than one injury is caused by the same accident, compensation shall be payable in respect of each such . injury. Provided further that the total compensation in respect of all such injuries shall not exceed rupees twenty thousand.
(4) x x x
(5) x x x
4. A reading of this rule will, therefore, show that the compensation payable either for death or injuries shall be such as is specified in the Schedule. According to Sub-clause 2 even if the injury suffered is not one of six which are enumerated in part II the injured may still be entitled to a compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-if the nature of injuries suffered by him was such as would deprive him of all capacity to do any work. It would, therefore be necessary to determine as to what is meant by the expression 'all capacity to do any work' employed in this sub-clause. It is apparent that Rule 2 is not confined to the six injuries as are enumerated in part 11 of the schedule but may include some other injuries also. But the nature of such injury necessarily must be such as would deprive a person of' all capacity to do any work'. A look on the injuries mentioned in part II would show that each of them relates to total loss of a limb or to the case of total deafness. Therefore, the
