Bombay High Court
Rukhmabai (Rukhminabai) Wd/O ... vs The Union Of India, Through ... on 1 September, 2021
Bench: Pushpa V. Ganediwala
27FA 270.2021.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2021
Rukhmabai (Rukhminabai) wd/o Baban Kande,
aged about 50 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o Pardi (Nimbi), Taluka Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.
...APPELLANT
Versus
The Union of India,
Through General Manager,
Central Railway, CST Mumbai.
...RESPONDENT
Shri R.G. Bagul, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for the respondent.
.....
CORAM : PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 01, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties at the stage of admission itself.
2. This is the appellant's/ claimant's Appeal filed
under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
("the Act") assailing the judgment and award dated
10/12/2015 passed by the Member (Judicial) and Member
(Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Case No. OA (IIu)/NGP/2012/0289, whereby the Tribunal has
dismissed the claim of the appellant/ claimant for
compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-.
3. The short question for consideration of this Court is
as under :
Whether the appellant Rukhmabai is entitled to receive
statutory compensation for the injury - left leg amputed
from above the knee ?
4. It is stated that on 20/01/2021, the appellant/
claimant for performing journey from Akola to the religious
place at Shegaon, had purchased one railway ticket bearing No.
M 53726466 dated 20/01/2021 from Akola to Shegaon and
boarded train No. 12810 - Howrah Mumbai Mail. There was a
heavy rush in the bogi of the train.
5. It is the case of the appellant/ claimant that before
the train reaches and stops at Shegaon railway station, due to
the sudden unexpected jerk and push of passenger, who were
tried to alight at Shegaon railway station, she fell down from
the running train at platform No.2 at Shegaon railway station,
thereby sustained severe injuries to her both legs and other
parts of the body. That after receiving first aid treatment at
Shegaon, she states that she was transferred to the Akola
Government Medical College & Hospital, and then again
admitted in the Arvind Hospital and Accident Rehabilitation
Academy at Akola. That due to severe injuries, she states that
her left leg was amputed from above the knee and her right leg
was treated for traumatic fracture and steel rod was inserted.
That she filed a claim petition claiming Rs.3,60,000/- with
interest towards compensation.
6. The respondent/ railway administration, through
their written statement, resisted the claim of the appellant/
claimant on the ground that it is not a case of untoward
incident, and she was not a bonafide passenger, and therefore,
the railway administration is not responsible to pay any
compensation to her.
7. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and recorded
evidence as adduced by the parties. The appellant/ claimant
examined herself below Exh. AW-1, while the respondent/
railway administration examined one Pundlik Gomaji Kurzekar,
working as Deputy Station Superintendent, Badnera at the
relevant time below Exh. RW-1.
8. The Tribunal, on the basis of oral and documentary
evidence on record, recorded the finding that the appellant/
claimant has failed to prove that at the relevant time, there was
an untoward incident occurred in the aforesaid train. The
Tribunal also recorded that she was not a bonafide passenger.
This judgment is impugned in this Appeal.
9. I have heard Shri Bagul, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the respondent.
I have also perused the record with the assistance of learned
both the counsel.
10. Shri Bagul, learned counsel for the appellant/
claimant, reiterated the case as is before the Tribunal, and
submits that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not considering
the oral and documentary evidence on record in its proper
perspective. He submits that the appellant is entitled to receive
compensation as per entry 16 of Schedule 2 of The Railway
Accidents And Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules,
1990 ("Rules of 1990"), and thus, he urged to quash and set-
aside the impugned judgment and award.
11. Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the respondent,
while supporting the impugned judgment and award, submits
that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the
appellant is entitled to compensation, the case of the appellant
would fall under entry 18 in the aforesaid Schedule.
12. I have considered the submissions put forth on
behalf of both the sides.
13. At the outset, the appellant/ claimant, in her
pleadings and evidence, has stated that on 20/01/2012, for
performing journey from Akola to Shegaon, she had purchased
a railway ticket bearing No. M53726466 dated 20/01/2012. In
support of this pleading, she has produced on record the
original ticket below Exh. A/1. Perusal of the said ticket would
indicate that the date of journey mentioned in it was
20/01/2012, and the said ticket was purchased for Rs.116/-.
The said ticket is verified as a genuine ticket vide report of the
Deputy Station Manager, Shegaon (Central Railway).
14. From her cross-examination, nothing could be
illicitated to show that she was not the bonafide passenger to
the aforesaid train and that the aforesaid ticket is not a genuine
ticket.
15. With regard to the untoward incident, a perusal of
the record and proceedings of the Tribunal would reflect that at
so many places, it has been stated that the appellant/ claimant,
while travelling in the aforesaid train, fell down from train and
sustained injuries. That apart from the pleadings and evidence,
the said fact can be found from a communication dated
07/05/2013 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager,
Bhusaval to the Chief Claim Officer, CST, Mumbai (Central
Railway) at page A-19, a communication dated 19/02/2013
issued by the Inspector, R.P.F. Akola (Central Railway) to the
Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusaval at page
A/21, Station Diary entry at Railway Station, Shegaon at page
26, extracts of movement diary at page A-33 and spot
panchanama at page A-37, and therefore, the finding recorded
by the Tribunal that the injuries sustained by the appellant/
claimant were self-inflected and not due to the untoward
incident, is clearly erroneous.
16. With regard to the injuries sustained by the
appellant/ claimant, the discharge card on record below Exh.
AW1/6 indicates the following injury :
Post traumatic amputation towards left leg with sub
trenchanteric femer.
The photograph of the appellant/ claimant, which
is placed on record at page A-39, would show that one of her
legs is totally amputed from the middle of her thigh.
17. As per Schedule appended to the Rules of 1990, the
entry 16 is with regard to compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- for
amputation at hip. That entry 17 is with regard to
compensation of Rs.6,40,000/- for amputation below hip with
stump not exceeding 5" in length measured from tip of great
trenchanter. That entry 18 is with regard to compensation of
Rs.5,60,000/- for amputation below hip with stump exceeding
5" in length measured from tip of great trenchanter but not
beyond middle thigh.
18. As can be seen from the facts and circumstances of
the case, the amputation appears to be below the hip with
stump exceeding 5" in length measured from tip of great
trenchanter but not beyond middle thigh, and hence, the case
of the appellant/ claimant falls under entry 18 for which the
prescribed compensation is Rs.5,60,000/-.
19. For the aforestated reasons, I pass the following
order :
ORDER
i. The Appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award dated
10/12/2015 passed by the Member (Judicial) and Member
(Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Case No. OA (Iiu)/NGP/2012/0289, is quashed and set-aside.
iii. The respondent/ railway administration to deposit
Rs.5,60,000/- with the Registry of this Court within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of copy of this order is received by
the concerned authority. After deposit of the said amount, the
appellant/ claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.
JUDGE
******
Sumit
