RAJA PATHAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal brought under Section 82-F of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, was an injured passenger. He has claimed enhancement of compensation to Rs. 3,20,829.80 in respect of the injuries sustained by him. The Claims Commissioner has awarded him only Rs. 8,000/- by way of compensation. Aggrieved by the award, the present appeal has been lodged.

(2.) There was an accident of 163 Up Sangam Express with 452 Down Goods Train on 30.10.1980 between Jhinjhak and Ambiapur stations of the Northern Railway. The appellant had boarded this train from Allahabad where he had come in connection with a court case. The fact that he was a bona fide passenger is not disputed. On account of the accident, the appellant suffered injuries which are admittedly two in number, i.e., fracture of patella and disfigurement of fragments in the right hand. It is alleged that he was admitted in the L.L.R.M. Hospital, Kanpur on 31.10.1980 but he was discharged the same day. The appellant denied this fact and according to him he was sent by bus to Etawah and there he was admitted to the District Hospital on 4.11.1980 and remained hospitalised until 6.4.1981. Dr. Rajendra Singh has proved the X-ray report which establishes that there was a fracture in the patella and other injuries also. It has come in evidence that on 20.11.1980 the plaster was changed and it was removed only on 10.1.1981. According to the doctor the injury in the right leg on account of fracture of patella has resulted in partial disability and the appellant cannot undertake any strenuous job, i.e., field work or to do any heavy work. The Claims Commissioner has also mentioned that the appellant must have suffered greatly on account of injury caused to his leg and must have remained disabled at least for some time. For these injuries, the appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- by way of compensation.

(3.) The appeal was argued in person by the appellant. Mr. Lalji Sinha has appeared for the respondent Railways. The record of the Claims Commissioner was sent for on several occasions but so far its whereabouts have not been located. This court is, therefore, under this handicap but Mr. Lalji Sinha appearing for the respondent submitted that the appeal can be disposed of even without the aid of the record. He has candidly but not seriously disputed the fact that the appellant was a bona fide passenger and that he had suffered certain injuries as indicated in the order. All that he has argued is that the injuries which have been caused are non-scheduled injuries and, therefore, the compensation awarded was just and proper.