(O&M) Union of India Vs Mohammad Assadulah War

Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and gone through the contents of the application, prayer made herein is allowed. Accordingly, the order

¶17

SONIKA 2026.07.28 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

FAO-359-2000 (O&M)

¶19

--2--

¶20

dated 05.03.2020 is hereby recalled and the main appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number and is taken up for final hearing today itself.

¶21

CM stands disposed of.

¶22

Main case

¶23

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 08.11.1999 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim petition preferred by respondentapplicant, on account of injuries sustained by him, was allowed and compensation of 1,20,000/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of order till₹ realization was awarded against the appellant-Railway administration.

¶24

Briefly stating, the respondent-claimant filed a claim petition under the provisions of the Railways Act pleading that while travelling in Sealdah Express from Ex-Jammu to Rampur (U.P.) in second sleeper class coach against ticket bearing No. 98294911, the train collided with Frontier Mail Train near Khanna on 26.11.1998. As a consequence of the collision, the respondent-claimant sustained injuries and was treated at Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh. He also alleged loss of luggage valued at 16,400/-. Upon notice, the appellant-Railway₹ Administration appeared and filed written statement while admitting that in the railway accident near Khanna, the name of respondent-claimant did appear further in the list of injured at S. No.6. It was further pleaded that the claimant had suffered only simple injuries and, therefore, would be entitled only to such compensation as may be legally admissible.

¶25

3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the appellant sustained injuries in the said rail accident and was thus entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation from the railway administration. It was further directed that and in case the amount of compensation was not paid within SONIKA 2026.07.28 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

FAO-359-2000 (O&M)

¶27

--3--

¶28

60 days, the applicant shall be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of passing of the order till the payment is made. The claim relating to loss of luggage was declined for want of cogent evidence. Hence, the present appeal.

¶29

Assailing, the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the findings recorded by the ld. Tribunal were contrary to law, evidence, and the pleadings of the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the injuries suffered by the respondent-claimant were simple in nature and the ld. Tribunal while relying upon photocopies of CT Scan reports issued by A1-Rahat Diagnostic Centre, Srinagar as well as medical certificate issued by Govt. Medical College, Srinagar recorded that there was injury on the spine. Moreover, these photocopies were never proved in accordance with law, as neither the original documents were produced nor was any author, scribe, or competent official from the diagnostic centre was examined to prove their execution or contents. He further contends that the respondent-claimant demanded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- only and contrary to this the ld. Tribunal awarded Rs.1,20,000/- by travelling beyond pleadings.

¶30

No one has appeared on behalf of respondent-claimant.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-

¶32

book.

¶33

In the present case, the accident in question was not disputed. It was also not denied that the respondent was one of the injured passengers as his name admittedly appeared in the list of injured persons prepared by the Railway Administration itself. The only controversy pertains to the nature of injuries and the consequential compensation. The findings recorded by ld. Tribunal were based upon documentary medical evidence i.e. the OPD card issued by Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mandi Gobindgarh as well as the medical certificate issued by SONIKA 2026.07.28 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶34

FAO-359-2000 (O&M)

¶35

--4--

¶36

Government Medical College, Srinagar and CT Scan report produced by the appellant-claimant. Though only the photostat copies of the abovementioned record were produced by the claimant, however, strict rules of evidence were not to be made applicable to dicard the medical record, especially, when the authenticity was never rebutted by the respondents. Even no effort was made by respondents to either summon the medical record from the above mentioned two hospitals nor any doctor was called as witness. These documents were found sufficient to establish that the respondent suffered fracture of the lumbar (spine). Mere assertion that the injuries were simple, unsupported by substantive evidence, cannot be accepted in preference to the medical record relied upon by the ld. Tribunal. Once the injury was found to be a fracture of the lumbar (spine), compensation was rightly awarded strictly in accordance with the amount prescribed under Serial No. 26 of the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, at Rs.1,20,000/- has been prescribed.

¶37

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. The award passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal awarding compensation of 1,20,000/- to the respondent-₹ claimant, is affirmed.

¶38

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶39

Copy of this order be conveyed to the respondent at the address given in the memo of parties.

¶40

July 22, 2026 (HARKESH MANUJA) sonika JUDGE

¶41

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

¶42

Whether reportable: Yes/ No

¶43

SONIKA 2026.07.28 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

(O&M) Union of India v. Mohammad Assadulah War

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Union of India v. Mohammad Assadulah War

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pooja Rani Alias Neha Vs Neeraj Jagga

Thath Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Nandni Vs Sachin Kumar

Shalu Vs Naresh

Ranjit Kaur @ Ranjeet Kaur Vs Sant Sarwan Dass Charitable Hospital and Another

(O&M) Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/S B.T.M. Oil Mills and Others