Kerala High Court
Anna Rayni Jude vs Union Of India on 27 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
MFA (RCT) NO. 86 OF 2017
O.A.(IIu)ERS/2016/0039 OF RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/APPLICANT
ANNA RAYNI JUDE,AGED 21 YEARS
W/O. ROBIN K.M, KUNDEPARAMBIL
HOUSE,UDYOGAMANDAL, MANJUMMAL P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN 683501
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.ANILA PETER
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SRI.S.SUDHEESH
SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-3
BY ADV SRI.DINESH CHERUKAT, SC, RAILWAYS
THIS MFA (RCT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.3.2024, THE COURT ON 27.03.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MFA(RCT).86/2017
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2023
This is an appeal filed by the claimant in O.A.
(IIu)/ERS/2016/0039 on the file of Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ernakulam Bench against the judgment dated 8.6.2017.
2. While the appellant was travelling with a valid ticket in train
No.16307 from Aluva to Kozhikode along with her relatives and when
the train stopped at Kuttippuram station, she got down from the train
for taking water. While re-entering the train with the bottle of water,
her leg slipped and she fell into the railway track and the wheels of the
compartment ran over her left leg and she sustained crush injury. Her
left leg above knee was to be amputated. The following are the three
major injuries sustained by her:
"(1) above knee amputation of left lower limb;
(2) Fracture of metacarpal of ring finger and crush injury of little
finger;
(3) fracture of superior and inferior ramus of pubis."
3. Based on the above injuries sustained by the appellant, the
MFA(RCT).86/2017
Tribunal found that the appellant is entitled to get a total compensation
of Rs.6,80,000/-, while the claim was Rs.8 Lakhs. Aggrieved by the
above judgment, reducing the compensation claimed, the appellant
preferred this appeal raising various contentions.
4. Now, the point that arise for consideration is the following:
Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable
to be interfered with, in the light of the grounds raised?
5. Heard both sides.
6. The point:
For injury No.(1) namely, amputation of left lower limb above
knee, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs.5,60,000/- under
item No.18 of the Schedule attached to Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1980. With regard to the
above compensation for injury No.1, there is no dispute.
7. For injury No.2, "fracture of metacarpal of ring finger and
crush injury of little finger, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.40,000/- on
the ground that the said injury is also not scheduled in the Rules.
8. The Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 to Railway Accidents and
Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1980 reads as follows:
MFA(RCT).86/2017
"3. Amount of Compensation-(1).......
(2).....
(3) The amount of compensation payable in respect of any
injury (other than an injury specified in the Schedule or referred
to in sub-rule (2) resulting in pain and suffering) shall be such as
the Claims Tribunal may after taking into consideration medical
evidence, besides other circumstances of the case, determine to be
reasonable:
Provided that if more than one injury is caused by the same
accident, compensation shall be payable in respect of each such
injury:
Provided further that the total compensation in respect of all
such injuries shall not exceed rupees one lakh sixty thousand."
9. In the light of the above provision, the learned counsel for the
appellant would argue that for injury No.2, maximum compensation of
Rs.1,60,000/- is to be provided and that Rs.40000/- awarded by the
Tribunal is too meager and disproportionate.
10. Since there is fracture to metacarpal ring finger as well as
crush injury of little finger, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded to
injury No.2 is inadequate and I hold that for injury No.2 a
compensation of Rs.80,000/- will be reasonable.
11. Injury No.3 was brought under item 32 of the Schedule and a
MFA(RCT).86/2017
compensation of Rs.80,000/- was allowed. The appellant has serious
dispute about Rs.80,000/- awarded for injury No.3. It was argued that
injury No.3 will come under item No.29 of the Schedule ie., fracture of
hip-joint and in that case the appellant will be entitled to get a
compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- for the above injury. Item No.32 of the
Schedule is fracture of pelvis not involving joint. Here, injury No.3 is
fracture of superior and inferior ramus of pubis, which is not the one
mentioned in item No.32. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.80,000/-
awarded for injury No.3, bringing it under item No.32 is not correct.
12. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that
injury No.3 cannot be brought under any other items in the schedule.
However, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, it can be
brought under item No.29.
13. Item 29 in the Schedule provides compensation for fracture
of hip-joint. Injury No.3 is fracture of superior and inferior ramus of
pubis. Hip-joint is the junction where the hip joins the leg to the trunk
of the body. It is comprised of two bones: the thighbone or femur, and
the pelvis, which is made up of three bones called illium, ischium and
pubis. Since the appellant sustained fracture of superior and inferior
MFA(RCT).86/2017
ramus of pubis, and her left leg above knee was to be amputated, I hold
that, injury No.3 can be brought under item No. 29 of the Schedule and
as such she is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- for that
injury. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get a total compensation of
Rs.5,60,000/- +1,60,000/- +80,000/- =Rs.8,00,000/-.
14. The Tribunal has granted interest @ Rs.6% per annum only
from the date of application till the date of the order and thereafter
@9% per annum till payment. Relying upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rathi Menon v. Union of India [2001 (2)
KLT 12 (SC)], the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that
the appellant is entitled to get interest @ 12 per annum from the date of
the award. However, learned counsel for the respondent would argue
that interest awarded by the Tribunal @ 9% is quite reasonable.
15. In the decision in Union of India v. Rina Devi [2018 (2)
KHC 920] it was held that the applicants are entitled to get interest for
the amount of compensation from the date of the accident. In this case,
the Commissioner has granted interest only from the date of
application. Therefore, considering the entire facts, I hold that in this
case, the appellant is entitled to get interest for the amount of
MFA(RCT).86/2017
compensation from the date of the incident ie., on 6.5.2016.
Considering the facts, I hold that interest @ 9% all along from the date
of the incident till the date of payment will be a reasonable one.
16. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be allowed, re-fixing the
quantum of compensation at a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight
Lakhs only). For the said amount, the appellant is also entitled to get
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the incident on 6.5.2016 till
the date of payment. The point answered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, re-fixing the quantum of
compensation at a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only).
For the said amount, the appellant is also entitled to get interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of the incident on 6.5.2016 till the date of
payment.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
sou.
