Appeal against Railway Claims Tribunal award for injury compensation. Court held award adequate but enhanced compensation from 20,000 to 35,000 due to hospitalization and treatment costs despite appellant suffering no scheduled injuries.
Compensation quantua modified from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 35,000 with interest at 6% per annum.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/21ST PHALGUNA, 1937
MFA.No. 102 of 2005 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OA 215/2002 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 16-12-2004
APPELLANT(S)/APPLICANT.:
JOSE VELLARA, S/O.V.P.ANTONY, VELLARA, VYLATHUR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.TONY CHACKO SRI.K.I.SAGEER
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT.:
UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI.
BY SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
&
MARY JOSEPH, JJ.
==========================
M.F.A(RCT). No.102 OF 2005
==========================
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
The injured-claimant in O.A.No.215 of 2002 on the files of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam filed the captioned appeal on being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted thereunder. He filed the said original application seeking an amount of `3,00,000/- as compensation to the injuries sustained by him in a train accident that occurred at Kadalundi on 22.6.2001. On that day, he was travelling in Mangalore-Chennai Mail Train No.6602. The
fact that the said train involved in an accident on 22.6.2001, the appellant was a passenger thereon and that he sustained injuries, are not in dispute. Ext.A2 is the certificate dated 27.6.2001 issued from Koyas Hospital, Feroke. It would reveal that in the said accident, the appellant sustained the following injuries:-
M.F.A.(RCT).102/2005
2
Contusion Lt. Eye, Lt. conjuctual haemorrhage, abrasion below (L) eye, Pain (L) shoulder.
2.Ext.A3 discharge summary issued from Amala Cancer
Hospital & Research Centre, Thrissur would also reveal that he had a head injury (Lt.), black eye and Subconjuctual Haemorrhage. He also took up a contention that in the accident, he lost a purse containing an amount of 16,822/-. He had been an inpatient from 23.6.2001 to 26.6.2001. It is in the said circumstances that the appellant filed the above original application seeking compensation of 3,00,000/-.
3.To establish his claim, he got himself examined as PW1 and got marked Exts.A1 to A4. On the side of the respondents, no evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced. The Tribunal found that the appellant-injured had not sustained any scheduled injury and the injuries sustained by him are only minor injuries. In such circumstances, it was found that the claim of `3,00,000/- is highly exorbitant and considering the nature of the injuries as also the
M.F.A.(RCT).102/2005
3
mental agony and pain suffered by him, an amount of `20,000/- was awarded with interest @ 6% per annum from 15.7.2002, the date of registration of the case till payment. It is dissatisfied with the said quantum of compensation that the captioned appeal has been filed.
4.Essentially, the main grievance of the appellant is relating the non-compliance with the first proviso to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules. It is provided therein that if more than one injury is caused by the same accident, compensation shall be payable in respect of each of such injury. The contention is that without giving any specific reason and without specifying the compensation payable in respect of each injury, the Tribunal passed an award for a compensation of `20,000/with interest at 6% from the date of registration of the case till payment. The further contention is that the judgment and award is not a speaking one and insofar as there is no adherence with the proviso to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents
M.F.A.(RCT).102/2005
4
(Compensation) Rules framed in exercise of the powers under section 129 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1989, the judgment and the award is liable to be interfered with.
5.We have carefully gone through the judgment and award, the evidence on record as also the various grounds raised in the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents as well. The appellant did not have a case that he sustained any scheduled injury. Rule 3 (3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules deals with the compensation payable in respect of any injury other than the injuries specified in the schedule or referred to in sub-rule 2, resulting in pain and suffering. We have already taken note of the injuries sustained by the appellant, as is obvious from Ext.A2 certificate and Ext.A3 discharge summary. They would reveal that he had a contusion on left eye and left conjunctual haemorrhage, abrasion below left eye and pain on left shoulder. The evidence on record would reveal that CT scanning was
M.F.A.(RCT).102/2005
5
done and he had been an inpatient in Amala Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Thrissur from 23.6.2001 to 26.6.2001. Ext.A3 would reveal that going by the prescription thereunder, he was advised to take bed rest and to take medicines for a period of 15 days. At the same time, nothing is on record to show as to whether or not he had actually taken the medicines as prescribed. Taking into account the injuries noted in Exts.A2 and A3, we do not find any reason to find fault with the Tribunal in not specifically mentioning compensation payable under each injury. Taking note of the injuries noted hereinbefore, we are also of the view that only a lumpsum amount can be awarded as compensation. At the same time, taking note of the fact that he had been an inpatient from 23.6.2001 to 26.6.2001 and also the fact that initially he had treatment from Koyas Hospital and that CT scan was done, the amount awarded now, cannot be said to be adequate or reasonable. We are also of the considered view that taking into account all such circumstances, an enhancement can be given to the tune of `15,000/- over and above the amount
M.F.A.(RCT).102/2005
6
already awarded. Hence, we modify the award. Consequently, the appellant will be entitled to get a total compensation of 35,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. While maintaining the rate of interest as ordered by the Tribunal for the amount of 20,000/-, it is ordered that the enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from
the date of the petition till realisation. The respondent is directed to satisfy with the award within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment failing which the appellant will be at liberty to realise the amount remaining to be paid, in accordance with law, with interest, as mentioned above.
Appeal is allowed to the above extent.
Sd/C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE)
Sd/MARY JOSEPH (JUDGE)
spc/
M.F.A.(RCT).102/2005 7
M.F.A.(RCT).102/2005
8
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
M.F.A.(RCT).102/2005 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal award is liable to be interfered with for non-compliance with Rule 3 regarding compensation for multiple injuries.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate considering the nature of injuries and treatment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jose Vellara
Union of India
C.T.Ravikumar
Mary Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
