Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO No. 294/2012 31st March, 2014 PUNIT VOHRA ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate.
Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal dated 20.12.2011 seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.3,20,000/- to Rs.[4] lacs.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/applicant/Mr. Punit Vohra on 3.9.2008, when he was about 40 years of age, was travelling by EMU Train from Badli to Old Delhi Railway Station when he met with an ‘untoward incident’ and suffered injuries. 2014:DHC:1799
3. The impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal holds the respondent-Railways guilty of negligence and has awarded compensation with respect to various injuries by awarding a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-.
4. Counsel for the appellant argues that the Railway Claims Tribunal has overlooked the injuries being fracture of the back bone which is fracture of L-4 as stated in the discharge summary. It is argued that this injury is covered under item no. 26 of Part-III of the Schedule of the Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 and for which injury, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- had to be awarded. It is also argued that there are a total of four non-scheduled injuries being fracture on the right side chest; fracture of right femoral artery, multiple abrasions and brushes all over body and fractures of right 2nd to 5th ribs; and considering the severeness of these injuries, the total compensation of Rs.80, 000/- for the non-scheduled entries should be granted as per Rule 3 (3)(proviso) of the 1990 Rules. It is argued that since the total of Rs.2,40,000/- which has to be awarded for amputation of the right leg from the middle thigh, Rs.1,20,000/which has to be granted for fracture of the spine bone L-4 without paraplegia and Rs.80,000/- towards non-scheduled injuries grand total comes to Rs.4,40,000/-, but, the amount is limited to a maximum amount of Rs.[4] lacs in terms of Rule 4 of the 1990 Rules and this compensation of Rs.[4] lacs accordingly be granted to the appellant.
5. The Tribunal in paras 9 to 12 of the impugned judgment has dealt with the type of injuries as also calculation of compensation and these paras read as under:- “9. In the claim application, it has been averred that due to accidental fall from the train, the applicant had sustained multiple fractures and other injuries all over his body and besides this, applicant’s right leg from thigh was amputated. I have carefully perused the Discharge Summary of Saroj Hospital & Heart Institute, Rohini, Delhi (Exh.AW-1/10) and other medical records, wherein the following injuries have been recorded:- CLAIM APPLICATION No.OA(IIu) 267/2009
(i) Amputation of right leg from middle thigh;
(ii) Fracture on right side chest;
(iii) Compound fracture of Rt. Femur c bone loss
(iv) Fracture Rt. Femoral Artery;
(v) Multiple abrasions and brushes all over body; and
(vi) Fractures of right 2nd to 5th ribs with right pneumothorax and subcutaneous emphysema.
10. The application has also placed on record Disability Certificate, issued by Dy. Medical Supdt. Of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, Delhi (Exh. Aw-1/12), which shows that applicant’s right lower limb was amputated and his permanent disability was adjudged upto 80%. Respondent did not adduce any contradictory documents to prove that the aforesaid injuries come under the provisions of “self-inflicted injuries”, as defined under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The said incident is, thus, covered within the four corners of the meaning of “untoward incident”, as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and the respondent Railway Administration cannot be said to be protected under any of the exceptional clauses of Section 124-A of the said Act. Issue Nos.[1] & 2 are, thus, decided in the affirmative in the applicants’ favour.
ISSUE NO.3:-
11. The applicant’s Injury No.(i) is a scheduled injury, which falls under Item No.19 of the Part-II, i.e. “amputation below middle thigh to 3 ½ “below knee”, of the Schedule of the Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as amended in 1997, for which compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- has been prescribed.
12. The aforesaid Injury Nos.(ii) to (vi) sustained by the applicant are non-scheduled injuries, as none of them falls in Part-II or III of the Schedule to Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. The quantum of compensation is, therefore, to be decided by taking into account the principles stated in Rule 3(3) of the aforesaid Rules.”
6. A reading of para-9 (iii) shows that there is a typing mistake in that the injury of fracture to L-4 bone of the spine has not been mentioned. This is a clear error and consequently, the Tribunal has overlooked the grant of compensation with respect to this injury which is fracture of L-4 bone in the spine, and which is covered under entry-26 and Part-III of the Schedule of the 1990 Rules.
7. Since the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-, and to which, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- has to be added, and which will total to Rs.4,40,000/-, but, since the maximum statutory compensation is only Rs.[4] lacs in terms of Rule 4 of the 1990 Rules, this appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs.3,20,000/- to a sum of Rs.[4] lacs.
8. No other issue is urged before this Court, although, initially, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was sought to be argued for enhancing the same.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the appellant will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 4 lacs, and not of Rs.3,20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. At this stage, I am informed that the amount of compensation as per the judgment of the Tribunal has already been paid to the appellant, and therefore, now only a balance sum of Rs.80,000/- would be payable to the appellant. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest at 8% per annum simple from the date of filing of the petition before the Tribunal till the date of payment be made to the appellant/petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
MARCH 31, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib