IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.184 OF 1998 T. Natarajan ...Appellant V/s. Union of India, . Thru’ General Manager, . Western Railway, Churchgate, Bombay ...Respondent Mr.C.M. Jha, Advocate, for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 7TH OCTOBER, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 17th August, 1995 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. The applicant was travelling in a second class compartment of the Borivali-Churchgate local train no.408-Up on 29th October, 1993 on ticket No.99498. When the train was at Matunga Road station, there was a bomb blast in the train and several persons received injuries in the bomb blast. The appellant also received some injuries on his legs. It is the case of the appellant that some foreign body entered in his both knees and his right leg lost sensation. He was admitted to the Sion Hospital on 29th October, 1993, as an indoor patient and was discharged on 3rd November, 1993. Thereafter he took treatment as an outdoor patient in that hospital till 22nd November, 1993. According to the appellant, thereafter he took treatment in a private hospital from 7th December, 1993 till 16th December, 1993 as an indoor patient and for four weeks thereafter as an outdoor patient. He filed a claim for compensation before the Tribunal for the injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal held that the appellant was a bonafide passenger at the time of bomb blast, suffered injuries in the bomb blast and was entitled to compensation. 3. After considering the evidence of the appellant regarding the injuries suffered, the Tribunal assessed the claim of the appellant at Rs.7,000/- and accordingly passed an award in the sum of Rs.7,000/-. Being aggrieved by the amount of the claim awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under the Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (for short "the Compensation Rules, 1990), the appellant was entitled to a minimum compensation of Rs.40,000/-. He submitted that the Tribunal erred in fixing the compensation at Rs.7,000/-. 5. Rule 3 of the Compensation Rules, 1990 provides that the amount of compensation payable in respect of death or for injury shall be as specified in the schedule. Schedule to the Rules specifies that the compensation amount on account of death would be Rs.2,00,000/-. Part 2 of the schedule specifies the amount of compensation for injuries specified therein. Injury suffered by the appellant is not one of the injuries specified in the schedule. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 provides that amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury other than the injury specified in the schedule shall be such as the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the medical evidence and other circumstances of the case, determing to be reasonable. Second proviso to the sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 of the Compensation Rules, 1990 provides that the total amount of compensation for all the injuries not specified in the schedule shall not exceed Rs.40,000/-. Perusal of Rule 3 and in particular sub-rule 3 thereof shows that in respect of all injuries put together which are not specified in the schedule, maximum compensation of Rs.40,000/- can be awarded Rs.40,000/- is not the minimum but the upper limit of compensation to be awarded in respect of injuries which are not specified in the schedule. The actual amount of compensation is required to be determined by the Tribunal on the basis of the medical evidence and other circumstances of the case as the Tribunal deems reasonable. 6. In the present case, the applicant was not required to spent any money for the treatment at the Sion Hospital. The entire expenses of the treatment at Sion Hospital were bourne by the Railways. The appellant has not produced any evidence of the alleged treatment taken by him as an indoor patient in the private hospital, except a certificate issued by Dr.Jejurikar and a bill-cum-receipt issued by him. The bill of Dr.Jejurikar shows total amount spent by the appellant for medical treatment as Rs.13,517/-. Dr.Jejurikar has stated that there was a presence of a small foreign body in the left calf muscle. This is contrary to the record as the x-rays taken in Sion Hospital do not show presence of any foreign body. As such the certificate about the presence of the foreign body in the left calf muscle cannot be accepted. Even if it is accepted, they had been removed and the expenses for the treatment of Dr.Jejurikar came to Rs.13,517/-. 7. In my view, apart from the claim of Rs.7,000/- for pain and suffering, allowed by the Tribunal the appellant would be entitled to Rs.13,517/- being the amounts spent by him for the medical expenditure in the private hospital of Dr.Jejurikar. For these reasons, the Appeal is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to pay to the appellant a total sum of Rs.20,517/- computed as Rs.13,517/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses and Rs.7,000/- towards pain and suffering as awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The appellant shall be entitled to the costs of the Appeal which are quantified at Rs.2,000/-. (D.G. KARNIK, J)