IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946 MFA (RCT) NO. 86 OF 2017 O.A.(IIu)ERS/2016/0039 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/APPLICANT ANNA RAYNI JUDE,AGED 21 YEARS W/O. ROBIN K.M, KUNDEPARAMBIL HOUSE,UDYOGAMANDAL, MANJUMMAL P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN 683501 BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.S.SUDHEESH SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-3 BY ADV SRI.DINESH CHERUKAT, SC, RAILWAYS THIS MFA (RCT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.3.2024, THE COURT ON 27.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Compensation - Railway Accident - Interpretation of Compensation Rules
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained severe injuries in a railway accident and was awarded compensation by the Tribunal. The claimant appealed against the reduced compensation, raising various contentions.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the injuries and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It held that the compensation for certain injuries was inadequate and disproportionate, and re-assessed the compensation amount. The court also addressed the issue of interest on the compensation amount.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal's order on compensation was liable to be interfered with, and the appropriate compensation for the sustained injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1980 to determine the reasonable compensation for the sustained injuries, considering medical evidence and other circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, re-fixing the quantum of compensation at a sum of Rs.8,00,000 and awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of the incident till the date of payment.
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2023 This is an appeal filed by the claimant in O.A. (IIu)/ERS/2016/0039 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench against the judgment dated 8.6.2017.
2. While the appellant was travelling with a valid ticket in train No.16307 from Aluva to Kozhikode along with her relatives and when the train stopped at Kuttippuram station, she got down from the train for taking water. While re-entering the train with the bottle of water, her leg slipped and she fell into the railway track and the wheels of the compartment ran over her left leg and she sustained crush injury. Her left leg above knee was to be amputated. The following are the three major injuries sustained by her:
(2) Fracture of metacarpal of ring finger and crush injury of little finger;
(3) fracture of superior and inferior ramus of pubis.”
3. Based on the above injuries sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal found that the appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.6,80,000/-, while the claim was Rs.8 Lakhs. Aggrieved by the above judgment, reducing the compensation claimed, the appellant preferred this appeal raising various contentions.
4. Now, the point that arise for consideration is the following: Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with, in the light of the grounds raised? 5. Heard both sides.
6. The point: For injury No.(1) namely, amputation of left lower limb above knee, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.5,60,000/- under item No.18 of the Schedule attached to Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1980. With regard to the above compensation for injury No.1, there is no dispute. 7. For injury No.2, “fracture of metacarpal of ring finger and crush injury of little finger, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.40,000/- on the ground that the said injury is also not scheduled in the Rules.
8. The Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 to Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1980 reads as follows:
9. In the light of the above provision, the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that for injury No.2, maximum compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- is to be provided and that Rs.40000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too meager and disproportionate.
10. Since there is fracture to metacarpal ring finger as well as crush injury of little finger, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded to injury No.2 is inadequate and I hold that for injury No.2 a compensation of Rs.80,000/- will be reasonable. 11. Injury No.3 was brought under item 32 of the Schedule and a compensation of Rs.80,000/- was allowed. The appellant has serious dispute about Rs.80,000/- awarded for injury No.3. It was argued that injury No.3 will come under item No.29 of the Schedule ie., fracture of hip-joint and in that case the appellant will be entitled to get a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- for the above injury. Item No.32 of the Schedule is fracture of pelvis not involving joint. Here, injury No.3 is fracture of superior and inferior ramus of pubis, which is not the one mentioned in item No.32. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.80,000/- awarded for injury No.3, bringing it under item No.32 is not correct.
12. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that injury No.3 cannot
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.