Disposed

(O&M) Satish Kumar v. Union of India

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2026FAO/2805/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Railway Claims Tribunal award holding claimant a bona fide passenger injured in an untoward incident but denying compensation as injuries were non-scheduled. Applying Rule 3(3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.80,000/- (or Rs.1,60,000/- as amended w.e.f. 01.01.2017), with interest @9% per annum from filing of the claim petition till realization, relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.80,000/- or Rs.1,60,000/- (whichever higher per amendment) with 9% interest from date of claim petition till realization; amounts already paid to be set off.

(O&M) Satish Kumar Vs Union of India — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

FAO-2805-2002(O&M)

¶3

[227] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO-280 5 -2002(O&M) Date of D ecision : 16.02.2026

¶5

Satish K u mar …Appellant

¶6

versus

¶7

Union of India ….Respondent

¶8

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶9

Present: Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocat e for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-U O I. ****

¶11

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶12

[1] Challenge is to the Awar d passed by the learned Rail w ay Claims T r ibunal, Chandigarh Bench, Ch a ndigarh, whereby the Tribunal h eld that the c l aimant was a bona fide passen g er who suffered injuries on acc o unt of unto w ard incident while travelling i n railways but refused to a w ard compens a tion as he suffered non-schedul e d injuries. [2] As per the findings recor d ed by the Tribunal, the clai m ant suffered t hree fractures-ankle, medial malleolus and talus. The injury is not a schedu l ed injury. Rule 3(3) of the R ailway Accidents and Unto w ard Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 deals with compensation in respect of unschedu l ed injuries and reads as under:-

¶13

“3(3) The amount of c ompensation payable in respe c t of any injury (other than an i njury specified in the Schedul e or referred to in sub-rule (2) re s ulting in pain and suffering, s h all be such as the Claims T ribunal may, after taking i nto consideration medical evide n ce, besides other circumstance s of the case, determine to be re a sonable:

¶14

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.20 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

¶16

FAO-2805-2002(O&M)

¶17

Provided that if more than one injury is caused by the s a me accident, compensation shal l be payable in respect of each s u ch injury:

¶18

Provided further that the t o tal compensation in respect o f all such injuries shall not ex ceed [Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand].”

¶19

[3] The injury being unschedu l ed injury would be governed by Rule 3(3) of 1990 Rules.

¶20

[4] In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal erre d in denying compensation of Rs.80,000/to the injured victim, wit h out recording any cogent reasons.

¶21

[5] Keeping in view the nature o f injuries suffered by the claim a nt, i.e. fract u re of ankle, medial malleolus a nd talus, it is clear that the s a me would a ff ect his normal day-to-day activities. The claimant would f ace difficulty in walking, standing and carr y ing routine work, apart from p ain and disc o mfort. Though the injuries s uffered by the claimant are n onschedule d injuries but the appellant has b e en left crippled. [6] Keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the claim a nt, the comp e nsation is accordingly enhance d to Rs.80,000/-. The amount after amendm e nts, which came into effect w.e.f. 01.01.2017 has now been enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/-. [7] In view of the observations m ade by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘ Union of India vs. Rina Devi, 2019 (3) SCC 572, the claima n t is held enti t led to an amount of Rs.80,00 0 /- with interest @ 9% per an n um from the d ate of filing of the claim petiti o n till the date of actual realiza t ion RAJNEESH SHARMA2026.02.20 16:33 or Rs.1,6 0 ,000/- whichever is higher. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

¶23

FAO-2805-2002(O&M)

¶24

[8] Needless to say, any amou n t already paid shall be set off and adjusted. The claimant shall supply his account details by filing an appropri a te application before the T r ibunal within 04 weeks. T he responde n t shall release the amount wit h in 08 weeks thereafter. In cas e of failure to pay within the stipulated peri o d, the claimant shall be entitle d to interest @ 9% per annum even on the am o unt of Rs.1,60,000/-.

¶25

[9] The Tribunal is directed to transfer the due compensatio n as awarded b y this Court to the bank acc o unt of the claimant as soon as the same is d e posited by the respondent.

¶26

[10] Disposed off accordingly.

¶27

[11] All pending miscellaneou s application(s), if any, st a nds

¶28

disposed o ff .

¶29

16.02.20 2 6 ‘R. Sharma'

¶30

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.20 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) Satish Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Satish Kumar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Vs Uhbvnl and Ors.

Narinder Kumar Vs Santokh Singh & Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Anil Kumar and Ors.

The Employees State Insurance Vs M/S Bawa Skin Company

Prem Chand Vs Haryana Wood Works

Surjit Kaur Vs Ajit Balaji Joshi & Ors.