Delhi High Court
Punit Vohra vs Union Of India on 31 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 294/2012
% 31st March, 2014
PUNIT VOHRA ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ...... Respondent
Through: Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railways
Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the judgment of the Railway Claims
Tribunal dated 20.12.2011 seeking enhancement of compensation from
Rs.3,20,000/- to Rs.4 lacs.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/applicant/Mr. Punit
Vohra on 3.9.2008, when he was about 40 years of age, was travelling by
EMU Train from Badli to Old Delhi Railway Station when he met with an
'untoward incident' and suffered injuries.
FAO 294/2012 Page 1 of 5
3. The impugned judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal holds
the respondent-Railways guilty of negligence and has awarded
compensation with respect to various injuries by awarding a sum of
Rs.3,20,000/-.
4. Counsel for the appellant argues that the Railway Claims
Tribunal has overlooked the injuries being fracture of the back bone which is
fracture of L-4 as stated in the discharge summary. It is argued that this
injury is covered under item no. 26 of Part-III of the Schedule of the
Railways Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990
and for which injury, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- had to be awarded. It is also
argued that there are a total of four non-scheduled injuries being fracture on
the right side chest; fracture of right femoral artery, multiple abrasions and
brushes all over body and fractures of right 2nd to 5th ribs; and considering
the severeness of these injuries, the total compensation of Rs.80, 000/- for
the non-scheduled entries should be granted as per Rule 3 (3)(proviso) of the
1990 Rules. It is argued that since the total of Rs.2,40,000/- which has to be
awarded for amputation of the right leg from the middle thigh, Rs.1,20,000/-
which has to be granted for fracture of the spine bone L-4 without paraplegia
and Rs.80,000/- towards non-scheduled injuries grand total comes to
FAO 294/2012 Page 2 of 5
Rs.4,40,000/-, but, the amount is limited to a maximum amount of Rs.4 lacs
in terms of Rule 4 of the 1990 Rules and this compensation of Rs.4 lacs
accordingly be granted to the appellant.
5. The Tribunal in paras 9 to 12 of the impugned judgment has
dealt with the type of injuries as also calculation of compensation and these
paras read as under:-
"9. In the claim application, it has been averred that due to accidental
fall from the train, the applicant had sustained multiple fractures and
other injuries all over his body and besides this, applicant's right leg
from thigh was amputated. I have carefully perused the Discharge
Summary of Saroj Hospital & Heart Institute, Rohini, Delhi
(Exh.AW-1/10) and other medical records, wherein the following
injuries have been recorded:-
CLAIM APPLICATION No.OA(IIu) 267/2009
(i) Amputation of right leg from middle thigh;
(ii) Fracture on right side chest;
(iii) Compound fracture of Rt. Femur c bone loss
(iv) Fracture Rt. Femoral Artery;
(v) Multiple abrasions and brushes all over body; and
(vi) Fractures of right 2nd to 5th ribs with right pneumothorax and
subcutaneous emphysema.
10. The application has also placed on record Disability Certificate,
issued by Dy. Medical Supdt. Of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar
Hospital, Rohini, Delhi (Exh. Aw-1/12), which shows that
applicant's right lower limb was amputated and his permanent
disability was adjudged upto 80%. Respondent did not adduce any
contradictory documents to prove that the aforesaid injuries come
under the provisions of "self-inflicted injuries", as defined under
FAO 294/2012 Page 3 of 5
Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. The said incident is, thus,
covered within the four corners of the meaning of "untoward
incident", as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act,
1989 and the respondent Railway Administration cannot be said to
be protected under any of the exceptional clauses of Section 124-A
of the said Act. Issue Nos.1 & 2 are, thus, decided in the affirmative
in the applicants' favour.
ISSUE NO.3:-
11. The applicant's Injury No.(i) is a scheduled injury, which
falls under Item No.19 of the Part-II, i.e. "amputation below middle
thigh to 3 ½ "below knee", of the Schedule of the Railways
Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, as
amended in 1997, for which compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- has been
prescribed.
12. The aforesaid Injury Nos.(ii) to (vi) sustained by the applicant
are non-scheduled injuries, as none of them falls in Part-II or III of
the Schedule to Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules. The quantum of
compensation is, therefore, to be decided by taking into account the
principles stated in Rule 3(3) of the aforesaid Rules."
6. A reading of para-9 (iii) shows that there is a typing mistake in
that the injury of fracture to L-4 bone of the spine has not been mentioned.
This is a clear error and consequently, the Tribunal has overlooked the grant
of compensation with respect to this injury which is fracture of L-4 bone in
the spine, and which is covered under entry-26 and Part-III of the Schedule
of the 1990 Rules.
7. Since the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-, and to
which, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- has to be added, and which will total to
Rs.4,40,000/-, but, since the maximum statutory compensation is only Rs.4
FAO 294/2012 Page 4 of 5
lacs in terms of Rule 4 of the 1990 Rules, this appeal is allowed by
enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs.3,20,000/- to a
sum of Rs.4 lacs.
8. No other issue is urged before this Court, although, initially, the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was sought to be argued for
enhancing the same.
9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the appellant
will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 4 lacs, and not of Rs.3,20,000/- as
awarded by the Tribunal. At this stage, I am informed that the amount of
compensation as per the judgment of the Tribunal has already been paid to
the appellant, and therefore, now only a balance sum of Rs.80,000/- would
be payable to the appellant. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.80,000/- alongwith
interest at 8% per annum simple from the date of filing of the petition before
the Tribunal till the date of payment be made to the appellant/petitioner
within a period of eight weeks from today. Parties are left to bear their own
costs.
MARCH 31, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
