PRAFULLA KUMAR SAMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the appellant is that he was a constable in Railway Protection Force. On receiving a command certificate from the A.S.I. on 27.1.1996 and on being directed by the O.I.C. of the R.P.F. Post, Talcher, to move in the next available goods train (as passenger train is plied only once a day in the route) to proceed to the accident site on the railway track in between Budhapank and Talcher under Budhapank Railway Station, he carried out the command and proceeded to the place of accident immediately in the next available goods train. He was travelling in the Driver's Cabin with arms on his shoulder and instructed the driver to stop the train for a while at the site of accident so as to enable him to safely get down from the train, for guarding the site. On arrival near the accident site, the Driver of the goods train stopped the train and when the appellant was in the process of getting down from the Driver's cabin, i.e., while one of his legs was on the foot rest and other was about to touch the ground, the goods train suddenly started moving giving a severe jerk, in consequence of which, the appellant could not control his balance and fell down on the metal part of the railway track and in the process, one of his legs was pulled inside the railway track resulting in dismemberment of his left leg. In course of treatment, his left leg was amputed below hip with a stump left not exceeding 5" in length. He was shifted to the hospital at Dera Colliery, Talcher and later to the Orthopedic Ward of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, where he was treated as an in-door patient from 28.1.1996 to 8.3.1996. He became a little fit by 27.8.1996. The appellant claims to have spent about Rs. 60,000/- towards the cost of medicine, transport, doctor's fees, purchase of blood, cost of attendant, cost of pathological examination etc. out of which, only a sum of Rs. 6,968/- was reimbursed by the railway authorities. On account of physical disability, the appellant was taken out of employment as a constable in the Railway Protection Force and was accommodated in an inferior post of Care Taker carrying less salary, perks, privileges and promotional prospectus. The appellant thereafter filed a claim petition, being O.A. No. 37 of 1998, under the provisions of Railways Act, 1989, as amended before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar claiming compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/- as provided in Item No. 17 of Part-III of Schedule-E of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Amendment Rules, 1997. The Claims Tribunal disposed of said O.A. No. 37 of 1998 on 16.6.1998 awarded an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- and directed payment of the same to the appellant within 30 days from the date of the award and in the event of delay, to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days from the date of award + an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost. In paragraph-5 of the award, the Tribunal has observed as follows:-

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that consequent upon permanent disability, he consistently suffered from various ailments and completely lost his physical ability. He was unable to move without assistance of others and being not sufficiently literatured could not understand the purport of the award dated 16.6.1998 inasmuch as the copy of the said award was also not communicated to him for which he could not approach the Tribunal for correction of the typographical error with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded which according to him should have been Rs. 3,20,000/- instead of Rs. 1,60,000/- as per the amended Rules. It is his further case that on receiving a notice from the Tribunal with regard to destruction of the records of O.A. No. 37 of 1998, on 14.4.2004, the appellant managed to obtain a copy of the award and on scrutiny of the same through his counsel, he found that the quantum of award has been mentioned as Rs. 1,60,000/- instead of Rs. 3,20,000/-. He therefore, filed a petition under section 13 (1-A) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with section 152 of the C.P.C. for correction of the typographical error committed in the impugned a ward. The learned Tribunal rejected the said application though it held that apparently there appears to be mistake as the said amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- is awarded without taking into consideration the amended provisions. The amended entry No. 17 prescribes Rs. 3,20,000/- as compensation. In spite of such observation, the said application was rejected by the learned Tribunal, which held that the Tribunal also committed an error in awarding the compensation when it was the case of the appellant himself that he was travelling in a goods train and not in a train carrying passengers and came to the finding that on the basis of his own pleading, the appellant was not entitled to any compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal, but observing that the Tribunal has no authority to reconsider the case declined to allow the correction of the mistake by making observation as follows:-

(3.) In this appeal, the appellant made a prayer to the following effect: