KHALIFA PASWAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 103 UP Delux Expresss train met with an accident near Naini, Allahabad on the night of 10th October, 1977 causing death and injuries to a large number of passengers. The appellant was one of the injured of that ill fated train'. Soon after the accident he was first admitted to Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad at about 6 AM where his injuries were recorded which are 11 in number. From that hospital he was lateron shifted to Swamp Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad at about 2 PM and remained hospitalised till 23rd October, 1977 as an indoor patient He remained under the treatment of Dr. N K. Mehndi Ratta who on examination found that he was suffering from wrist drop besides other injuries.

(2.) WHEN the matter was taken up before the Adhoc Claims Commissioner he found that the wrist drop had developed due to injuries suffered by him in the accident and this finding is no longer under challenge The Claims Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs 10,000/- by way of compensation and feeling aggrieved this appeal has been filed by the injured.

(3.) A reading of this rule will, therefore, show that the compensation payable either for death or injuries shall be such as is specified in the Schedule. According to Sub-clause 2 even if the injury suffered is not one of six which are enumerated in part II the injured may still be entitled to a compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-if the nature of injuries suffered by him was such as would deprive him of all capacity to do any work. It would, therefore be necessary to determine as to what is meant by the expression 'all capacity to do any work' employed in this sub-clause. It is apparent that Rule 2 is not confined to the six injuries as are enumerated in part 11 of the schedule but may include some other injuries also. But the nature of such injury necessarily must be such as would deprive a person of' all capacity to do any work'. A look on the injuries mentioned in part II would show that each of them relates to total loss of a limb or to the case of total deafness. Therefore, the real purpose behind Rule 2 appears to be that there should be total loss of capacity and not where a person may still be able to do some work despite the injuries caused to him. The submission of Sri Sinha appears to be more logical. What is necessary for applying Rule 2 is that the injury should of such a nature which totally deprives a person of his capacity to do any work. He must lose capacity to do any work completely. The word' any in relation to the work cannot be confined to such work only as the person was doing before the injury was caused to him. If a person retains some capacity to do the work be cannot claim maximum compensation payable under part II of the schedule. The view that I have taken above also appears to be justified from a reading of sub-clause 3 of the rule. Rule 3 also refers to injuries in addition to those that are mentioned in Sub-Rule 2 or in the schedule meaning thereby such injuries as are neither mentioned in part II or III of the schedule and also those which are not covered by Sub-Rule 2 i.e. those injuries which are not included among the six enumerated in Part II but is such as may totally incapacitate a person from doing any work. Sub-Rule 3, therefore, makes the provision very comprehensive and enlarges the scope in relation to the injuries. Compensation can, therefore, be awarded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of the injuries that are not enumerated in Part II or III or the schedule at all; But in such cases the Claims Commissioner is required to take into consideration the totality of circumstances to determine reasonable amount of compensation. This rights is however, subject to two conditions laid down in the proviso i e. compensation will be payable for each injury and that the sum total of compensation shall not exceed Rs. 20,000/-.