Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3353
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
ANILKUMAR M – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER – Respondent
MFA (RCT) NO. 10 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.DIVYA B.NAIR, SMT.K.N.BINDU
For the Respondents: SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR
Compensation limits set by relevant rules restrict enhancement beyond established maximums for injuries not specified in the schedule.
Headnote:Rule 3 (1) of the Railway Passengers Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 provides statutory compensation amounts. In this case, the appellant contended that the compensation of Rs.1,60,000 for severe burn injuries, declared by the Tribunal, was inadequate due to the nature of his injuries. The court found that since the appellant's injuries fell outside the specified schedule, the maximum permissible compensation had been properly awarded. The appeal was therefore dismissed as no enhancement was warranted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant grievance regarding compensation adequacy. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent defends tribunal's compensation limit. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court finds no grounds for compensation enhancement. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The claimant in O.A.No.43/2023 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam has filed this appeal dissatisfied with the amount of compensation allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of accident. The appellant contends that he suffered 36% burned injuries to his face, both hands and feet. He was treated as impatient from 02.04.2023 to 26.05.2023 and underwent a surgery on 16.05.2025. He further submitted that the treatment continued even after a surgery conducted on 16.05.2025. The case of the appellant is that in the nature of the severe injuries sustained, compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the Tribunal has granted maximum compensation provided under the relevant rules. Hence, he submitted that no interference is warranted in this case.
4. Rule 3 (1) of the Railway Passengers Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990, provides that the amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries shall be specified in the schedule. The appellant has not sustained any injuries specified in the schedule. In such an event, Rule 3(3) would apply. The 2nd proviso to Rule 3(3) stipulates that the total compensation in respect of the all such injuries shall not exceed Rs.1,60,000/- when the injuries are not falling within the schedule. In the instant case, the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,60,000/- with interest as compensation to the appellant. As the injuries sustained by the appellant, do not fall within the schedule, maximum compensation liable to be granted under Rule 3(3) is Rs.1,60,000/-.
Under such circumstance, no further enhancement can be granted. Therefore, the appeal is rejected.
Sd/-
