Scheduled injuries qualifying for higher compensation under relevant rules must be recognized distinctly from non-scheduled injuries.

JUDGMENT

Appellant approached the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for injuries sustained in an untoward incident occurred on 20.09.2018. Appellant traveled from Guruvayoor in Guruvayoor – Chennai Egmore Express after purchasing a second class ticket and the train reached Kollam in the early morning of 20.09.2018. For his journey to Perinad from Kollam, he purchased a second class ticket and while boarding the next train, the train suddenly moved forward and the appellant fell into the track through the gap between the train and the platform. He suffered serious injuries and was taken to Travancore Medical College Hospital, Kollam where he was treated as inpatient till 28.09.2018. Thereafter, from 29.09.2018, he was admitted and treated in West Fort Hospital, Thrissur. Again he was admitted on 30.10.2018 and discharged on 03.11.2018. He sought a total compensation of Rs.

8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only).

2. During the trial before the Tribunal, appellant was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked. No evidence was adduced by the respondent, Railway except marking of DRM report. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment granted an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 9%

per annum from the date of filing of the application.

3. In this appeal, the appellant contends that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that none of the injuries sustained by the appellant was a scheduled injury. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that, the first three injuries mentioned under the issue no.3 in the impugned judgment would amount to fracture of hip-joint, which is included at Sl.No.29 in part III of the schedule to Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules , 1990.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the following injuries :-

1. Comminuted fractures of bilateral SI joint, left pubic bone with diastasis or left SI joint and pubic symphysis (open book type)

2. Displaced fracture of right iliac blade.

3. Fractures of left acetabular anterior column.

are fractures sustained to the bones associated with the hip- joint. He therefore contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) as compensation for the first three injuries and for the remaining injuries which are none scheduled injuries separate compensation ought to have been granted. He submitted that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) can be considered as compensation awarded for the remaining injuries other than those specifically mentioned above. Therefore in addition to the amount granted by the Tribunal, appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand only) more as compensation.

5. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent on the contrary submitted that the Tribunal has analysed the evidence appropriately and came to the conclusion that the injuries sustained are not scheduled injuries. He submitted that the discharge summary would not show that the appellant sustained fracture of hip-joint. He further submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is adequate and the appellant is not entitled for any enhancement.

6. I have perused the discharge summary dated

08.10.2018. Diagnosis as per discharge summary is that the appellant suffered ‘pelvis fracture of right SI joint’. Fracture of pelvis not involving joint is also an injury within part III of the schedule, included at Sl.No.32. However, the discharge summary dated 08.10.2018 shows that the appellant suffered pelvis fracture with fracture of right SI joint. Therefore, in my view the injury falls under Sl.No.29 in Part