Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Shambhaji Rao on 26 May, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 152/2014
% 26th May, 2014
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Vibhu Shankar, Advocate.
versus
SHAMBHAJI RAO ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.9294/2014 (condonation of delay in filing the appeal)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 23 days in filing
the appeal is condoned.
2. C.M stands disposed of.
FAO No.152/2014
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 09.1.2014, by
which the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the respondent
No.1/claimant for three fractures suffered. The relevant paras are 12 and
13 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:-
"Issue No. 04.
12. As per the discharge summary issued by the JPN Apex
Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi (Ext. A-10). Shambhaji
Rao was admitted on 27.05.2012 with a history of type 2 nd
pelvic injury in the left side. There was multiple fractures,
effecting the left ilium, right side sup/inf puicrami and S1
vertebrae. He was discharge after treatment on 11.07.2012 As
per the disability certificate, issued by the District Hospital,
Gwalior. (Ext. A-12) he is now 40% disable. Appearing before
the Tribunal on 15.03.2013, Shambhaji reported that the injury
has crippled him. I have no reason of disbelieve him because
multiple fractures at the age of the 66, is bound to effect his
quality of life.
13. In terms of item 30 of schedule Under Rule 3 of the
Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation)
Rules 1990, Shambhaji Rao Yadav is entitled to receive Rs.
2.40 Lakh for fracture of three major bones @ Rs. 80,000/- for
each fracture. The gentleman had undergone long treatment at
AIIMS Delhi and continues to receive treatment even now. I
have no doubt in my mind that he had spent good amount of
money on his treatment. He is therefore, required to be
compensated for his long stay in hospital which involves cost
of medicine and other incidental expenditure. So, to my mind,
a total amount of Rs. 3 Lakh will meet the ends of justice in
this case. Thus, the applicant is entitled to receive Rs. 3 Lakh
as compensation from the respondent railway."
2. The only argument urged on behalf of the appellant/Railway is that
as per entry 30, a total sum of Rs.80,000/- is given for all fractures and,
therefore, the Tribunal has erred in multiplying the amount of
Rs.80,000/- three times.
3. The argument urged on behalf of the appellant is misconceived
because entry 30 of Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward
Incident (Compensation) Rules 1990 provides for grant of Rs.80,000/-
for one fracture and not for total of all the fractures.
4. Since in the present case, there are 3 separate fractures at three
places as stated in para 12 of the impugned judgment, therefore, I do not
find any merit in the appeal that only Rs.80,000/- had to be awarded by
the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving parties to bear
their own costs.
C.M.Nos. 9292/2014 & 9293/2014
Since the appeal is dismissed, these two applications are also
dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
MAY 26, 2014
KA
