IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR M.F.A. NO.2763 OF 2010 (RCT) BETWEEN:
P.RAJESH @ GOPI, S/O S.PRABHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT DOOR.NO.40, ‘F’ BLOCK, CHAMPION REEF-KGF, KOLAR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.M.A.MALVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE) **** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 23(1) OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ACT, 1987 CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.A.NO.128 OF 2007 FROM THE FILE OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed for modification of judgment and order dated 13.04.2009 in O.A. No.128/2007 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, and for enhancement of the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum.
02. It is the case of the appellant that he was traveling in train No.524 as a bonafide passenger from Krishnarajapuram to Oorgaum holding a valid journey ticket bearing No.076377. When the train was near BEML Nagar Railway Station, the appellant while going to toilet to attend nature’s call, lost his balance and fell down from the compartment into the gap inbetween the track and platform, as a result of which, he was severely injured. Medical treatment was taken in Victoria Hospital. His leg was amputated upto the hip joint, as a result of which, he is permanently disabled.
03. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The claim was contested by the respondent. It is stated that it was a self- inflicted injury on account of the negligence of the passenger.
04. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Was the applicant a bonafide passenger by train No.524 Bangalore – Marikuppum Passenger on 14.07.2005?
ii. Did the applicant suffer injuries due to his own carelessness and negligence as stated in Para 6 to 9 of reply statement or due to accidental fall covered under Section 123 (c) (2) of Railways Act, 1989?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to any compensation from the respondent? If so, to what extent?
iv. What order? What costs?
05. On considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal passed an order directing the railway administration to pay compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- along with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of adjudication till the date of actual payment. Being aggrieved by the said order, the claimant – petitioner is before this court.
06. There is no dispute about the appellant being a bonafide passenger who sustained injuries in the accident while traveling in the train. There is no controversy as regards the injuries/amputation suffered by the claimant. The medical records confirm that the left leg of the claimant is amputated upto the hip joint. The claimant was inpatient for about two months and he has undergone surgeries and other required medical treatments.
07. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the quantum of compensation awarded is quite unreasonable and disproportionate to the injuries and the amputation sustained by the claimant.
08. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that there are no valid grounds to enhance the compensation.
09. In view of the rival contentions, it is necessary to ascertain whether the claim of the injured victim is entitled to enhancement of compensation.
10. As per the Notification issued by the Ministry of Railways dated 22.12.2016, the Schedule is provided for amount of compensation payable in respect of death and injuries under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
11. According to Sl.No.17 of the said Schedule, the amount of compensation prescribed for amputation below hip with stump not exceeding 5” in length measured from tip of great trenchanter, but not beyond middle thigh, is Rs.6,40,000/- and this amount shall be the maximum which should be inclusive of interest.
12. In view of the decision reported in Union of India vs. Rina Devi in Civil Appeal No.4945/2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the amount so calculated is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the award of the Tribunal, the claimant will be entitled to higher of the two amounts.
13. Thus, the amount payable under the said Act/schedule is the maximum which is inclusive of interest. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the maximum amount that could be awarded in the case of schedule injuries is Rs.6,40,000/-. A bonafide passenger who is injured in an untoward accident could be awarded either a sum under the unamended Schedule with interest or a sum under the amended Schedule, subject to the maximum sum that could be provided under the amended Schedule.
14. In the instant case, as per the court directions, the Consulting Physician of High Court of Karnataka Dispensary, has submitted a compliance report wherein it is stated that on examination of the patient, it is found that the amputation comes under Item No.17 of Part-III of the Schedule. Thus, as contended by the learned counsel for the claimant, a maximum compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- could be awarded.
15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant/appellant has made out the grounds for enhancement of compensation, as provided at Sl. No.17 of the Schedule prescribed under Rule 3 namely the amount of compensation payable in respect of death and injuries under the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.
16. Accordingly, the miscellaneous first appeal is allowed.
The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) inclusive of interest and costs, in addition to the compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- already granted by the Tribunal. The railway authorities are directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which, the appellant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of judgment. Out of the compensation awarded, 50% shall be deposited in any nationalized / scheduled bank for a period of five years.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ