REGHUPRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the applicant before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench under S. 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is his case that he fell from Ernakulam-Quilon Push Pull train No. 355 at the Platform No. 4 of Quilon Railway Station on 24.4.2001 and sustained injuries. He fell in between the train and the platform, the train ran over his left leg and as a result, he suffered traumatic amputation of left leg below knee. He claimed compensation of Rs. 4,90,000/-. The Tribunal after raising various issues found that the appellant was a bona fide passenger, that there was no merit in the contention of the respondent that this incident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the appellant and that the respondent could not escape from its liability under any of the exemptions given under S. 124A of the Railways (Amendment) Act. As far as issue No. 4 was concerned, which is whether the appellant was entitled to get compensation from the respondent, if so, what amount the Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 2,15,000/-. In arriving at the said conclusion the Tribunal relied on Ext. A3 Card issued from the Department of Orthopaedics, SP Fort Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. It is found that he was admitted there on 30.5.2003 and discharged on 4.6.2003 and diagnosed as having discharging sinus (L) leg B/K amputee. It was stated therein that sinogram was done for the sinus present at stump and was advised to attend the hospital on 12.6.2003 for suture removal.

(2.) The Tribunal also directed payment of interest at 6% from the date of registration of the case, i.e., from 3.6.2003 till payment. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal erred in not awarding compensation for the pain and suffering under sub-rule (3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). He would submit that the appellant had to undergo hospitalisation and even after the amputation he had to undergo treatment and therefore he underwent pain and suffering which was wrongfully refused. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent would support the order.