GURDAYAL SINGH MITTAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 82-F(2) of the Railways Act directed against an order of the Claims Commissioner, Northern Railway, Allahabad dated July 17, 1978. The appellant was a bona fide passenger in the 103 UP Delux Express, which collided with the CPC-Special at Naini Railway Station on October 10, 1977. As a result the appellant sustained injuries. The Claims Commissioner found that he was unable to establish loss of belongings and for the pain and suffering caused to the appellant due to the injury sustained by him a sum of Rs. 8,000/- has been awarded as compensation.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the compensation awarded is inadequate. The injuries caused to the appellant as testified by Dr. Rajendra Dayal examined on his behalf were as under : -

(3.) These are not injuries specified in the Schedule appended to the Railways Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1950. Rule 6(3) relied on both sides provides that the amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury (other than injury specified in the Schedule) resulting in pain and suffering shall be such as the Claims Commissioner may in all circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable. The Claims Commissioner in this case had made assessment of the compensation of reasonable consideration taking into account the nature and the extent of the injuries caused to the appellant and he has taken a plausible view. The assessment made by him may not be lightly interfered with in the absence of a cogent ground shown to the contrary. It was argued for the appellant that according to the medical opinion the injury caused on the chest region could be dangerous to life. The Claims Commissioner has been alive to this and he has taken this into consideration and estimated the compensation for that part of the injury as Rs. 6,000/-. In regard to the injury caused to the left food the compensation estimated is Rs. 2,000/-. It cannot, therefore, be said that the estimate does not cover each of the injuries found proved. No other injury was made out on the examination nor did the appellant claim or establish any amount payable to him by way of special damages.