PRASAD.A.V Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment dtd. 10/1/2017 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.(II-U) 50/2002 disallowing the prayer of the appellant for enhancement of compensation which was earlier awarded by the Tribunal on 12/4/2005.

(2.) The appellant, an Upper Primary School Teacher, is one amongst the survived passengers in the Kadalundi Train Accident happened on 22/6/2001. He suffered grievous injuries requiring prolonged treatment. He had approached the Railway Claims Tribunal by filing the required application on 15/12/2001 claiming compensation for Rs.4.00 lakhs stating the reason that the accident caused injuries resulting in permanent disability. Before the Tribunal he gave evidence as PW1. It is stated that, though 27 documents were produced by the appellant to substantiate his claim, the Tribunal marked only 11 documents. As per the earlier judgment dtd. 12/4/2005, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000.00 as compensation. The appellant challenged the above judgment before this Court by filing MFA No.132 of 2005 contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate. It is stated that, during the pendency of the above MFA before this Court the appellant had undergone four surgeries in connection with the injuries suffered in the aforesaid train accident. The medical bills and other documents pertaining to the above surgeries and treatment undergone by the appellant were produced before this Court in MFA No.132 of 2005. As per the judgment dtd. 10/2/2010, a Division Bench of this Court remanded the case to the Railway Claims Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce further evidence. Thereafter the Tribunal passed the judgment dtd. 1/10/2010 declining to grant any enhancement of the amount of Rs.1,60,000.00 which was earlier awarded as compensation to the appellant. In the aforesaid judgment, the Tribunal made sarcastic comments about the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dtd. 10/2/2010. The appellant challenged the above judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal by filing MFA No.204 of 2010 before this Court. Thereafter a Division Bench of this Court, in MFA No.204 of 2010, set aside the aforesaid judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal as per the judgment dtd. 20/1/2016, strongly deprecating the course adopted by the Tribunal. The case was accordingly remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after considering all the relevant records produced by the appellant in support of his claims. It was further directed that the appellant has to be permitted to bring all documents legally on record. However, the Railway Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dtd. 10/1/2017, affirmed its original order dtd. 12/4/2005, and held that the appellant is not entitled to get any further amount. Though there was specific direction of the Division Bench of this Court in the remand judgment to consider the various medical bills and other records relied on by the appellant and to re-evaluate his entitlement to be considered as a person deprived of all capacity to do any work as envisaged under Rule 3(2) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, the Tribunal paid no heed to the above direction, and rendered the judgment by harping upon technicalities. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, the appellant is here before this Court.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Central Government Counsel representing the respondent.