ABDUL KAREEM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant judgment/claimant while travelling in Train No. 6602 from Mangalore to Ernakulam on 22nd June, 2001 the train fell into the river at Kadalundi. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered head injury and fracture and he claimed compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal contending that he suffered head injury and fracture on left 9th rib in addition to contusions and abrasions. He was immediately taken to nearby Koya's Hospital and thereafter to General Hospital, Ernakulam, from there referred to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, for outpatient treatment. He was a wayside bunk owner, according to him. As a result of the accident, he is unable to do any work. He cannot open the bunk now. Only when his son is coming weekly, the bunk is being opened and he is not able to count the money or to take any materials. According to him, as the injuries sustained in the accident deprived him from doing any work, he is entitled to get compensation. Originally, he claimed compensation for Rs. 2 lacs. But, after taking note of amendment of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, in 1997 the claim amount was enhanced to Rs. 4 lacs. The Tribunal found that there is no head injury but awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000 as provided under Item 33 of Part III of the Schedule for the fracture on the 9th rib. According to the Tribunal, injuries on the lumbar region are not included in the schedule. The total amount granted was only Rs. 60,000 with interest from the date of award.

(2.) It is contended by the appellant that the finding of the Tribunal that there was no head injury is incorrect. It is further contended that he is entitled to interest from the date of the accident itself. He has got a further case that the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules are applicable when there is no fault on the part of the Railways. Here the accident occurred with the fault of the Railways as the train fell into river and the appellant is entitled to get more amount than that is provided under the Rules. The Tribunal found that the appellant is a bona fide passenger and the accident occurred as is alleged. The appellant had a further case that he has three children. One son is mentally retarded and the second daughter is physically handicapped. He was the only bread winner of the family. He and his family lost all hopes and he cannot do anything worthy. Even though in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the award medical reports were referred, in paragraph 8 the finding of the Tribunal is as follows:

(3.) We are afraid to support the above finding as it is totally opposed to evidence adduced in this case. We have gone through the medical reports and oral and documentary evidence. It is true that the appellant was immediately admitted to Koya's hospital, which is a nearby hospital to the place of accident. There it was certified that there was no apparent head injury, Ext. P2 is a discharge summary dated 23rd June, 2001. It is noticed that there was no sign of fracture but there was frontal headache. There was no sign of head injury. It needed further investigation. Thereafter, he was treated in General Hospital, Ernakulam can be seen from Ext. P3. He was referred to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam on 23rd June, 2001. Various examinations were conducted in that hospital. Ext. P5 treatment summary dated 28th June, 2001 reads as follows: