MD. LEYAQAT ANSARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Murari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sunil Kumar Ravi,- learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Union of India through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur/the sole Respondent.

(2.) The present appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against order dated 22.9.2011 passed in Claim Application No. OA0008 of 2010 by Sri J.D, Goswami, learned Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal"). It has been pleaded that the Claims Tribunal despite the fact that the son of the appellant was entitled to get compensation for non-schedule injuries also has granted compensation for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000A under the schedule injury contained in schedule 20 of the schedule to THE RAILWAY ACCIDENTS AND UNTOWARD INCIDENTS (COMPENSATION) RULES, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "RULES 1990"). The son of the appellant was minor. On 20.1.2009, while he boarded-a passenger train i.e. 745UP on a valid railway ticket at Kudra Railway Station, due to heavy rush and jerk, he fell from running train and he-got grievous injuries. Subsequently, left leg below knee of the son of the appellant namely Najakat Ansari was got amputated. In the said accident he also received fractured injuries on the right leg and other lacerated injuries. Subsequently, the injured was medically examined and he was also examined by the Medical Board. Regarding his disablement the Board granted certificate showing disability up lo 80%. The certificate, which was produced and marked as Exhibit-'A6' makes it clear that there was amputation of left leg and also deformity of the right foot and ankle-joint. Finally, a claim case was filed before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation in view of provisions contained in RULES 1990. The learned Claims Tribunal after examining the materials on record and evidences by the impugned order allowed the claim case and directed for paying compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in view of injury of amputation of left leg below knee. Aggrieved with the. order of the Claims Tribunal to the extent of non-granting compensation in respect of nonrschedule injury, the appellant preferred the present appeal.

(3.) It was submitted by Sri Murari, learned counsel for the appellant, that Rule 3(3) of RULES 1990 makes it clear that in case of non-schedule injury, which is not sufficient for depriving the injured from all capacity of work, maximum compensation amount up to Rs. 80,000/- is required to be.paid. He submits that injury which is non-schedule sustained by the injured is sufficient for granting compensation under aforesaid provision for maximum amount i.e. Rs. 80,000/-. He submits that the Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim case has not at all considered or discussed on non-schedule injuries nor it has granted the same and as such, it was prayed that the appellant is entitled to get the compensation amount under the non-schedule injury. In support of his argument learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on an unreported oral judgment of a Single Bench of this Court dated 6.3.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 633 of 2008.