SATYAWAN J MAHALE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by the appellant is to the Judgment and order dated 12th September, 1995 passed by the learned Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bombay.

(2.) The appellant was travelling by a suburban train of the western railway on 29th October, 1993 from Kandivali to Charchgate. There was a bomb blast at Matunga Railway Station. As a result, the appellant sustained severe injuries. He was admitted to a hospital and was discharged on 8th November, 1993. He received only a sum of Rs.2,000/ by way of ex gratia payment from the respondent Railway. He filed a claim in the sum of Rs. 1,95,000/ . It is not in dispute that the entitlement of compensation is governed by the Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules ). The Tribunal held that in view of second proviso to Sub Rule 3 of Rule 3 of the said Rules, the compensation cannot exceed a sum of Rs.40,000/ . Accordingly the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.40,000/ .

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the appellant suffered several non schedule injuries. He submitted that the appellant suffered the injuries which are of very serious and grave nature and the proviso to Sub Rule 3 of Rule 3 relied upon by the Tribunal will apply only in the case of small injuries. He submitted that in view of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 3, a person who has suffered non schedule injuries and who is deprived of capacity to do any work is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/ . But, in the present case, the appellant who has suffered 50% disability is held entitled to only to a sum of Rs. 40,000/ . He, therefore, submitted that the relevant Rules have not been read and applied properly by the Tribunal. He placed a reliance of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sailendra Nath Banerjee V/s. Union of India, 1988 AIR(Cal) 333]