1 fa.635.95 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 635 OF 1996 Union of India. ... Appellant Versus Pravin Prabhakar Monore. ... Respondent ----- Mr. A.N.Samant for the Appellant. Mr.G.J.Mohanrao for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18 th April, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant – Union of India. 2 The Union of India has taken an exception to the judgment and order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal on 4 th August, 1995 by which compensation of Rs.1,06,873/- has been granted. 2 fa.635.95 3 The Respondent-claimant was traveling by a suburban train on 18 th January, 1993 between Bombay V.T. And Ambernath. When the train was in between Kanjur Marg and Bhandup Railway Stations, there was an acid bomb blast around 05:35 pm in the train. The Respondent sustained injuries as a result of the bomb blast. He suffered burn injuries on left side of his face, left eye, left elbow, left wrist, left palm, both thighs, left fingers of foot and joint of sole. According to the case of the Respondent, he suffered burn injuries to the extent of 5% on the face and burn injuries to the extent of 7% on left portion of his body. 4 The Respondent filed a claim petition before the Railways Claim Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Respondent claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground that he has suffered an injury, which is specified in Item No.5 of Part II of the Schedule of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules of 1990”). He claimed compensation of Rs.36,498.75/- being the expenditure incurred on medical treatment. Apart from claiming 3 fa.635.95 compensation of Rs.18,000/- on account of loss of earning, he claimed damages of Rs.32,502/- as general damages on account of mental and physical shock, pain and suffering etc. The claim petition was opposed by the Appellant by filing written statement. The fact that there was a bomb blast was not denied. However, all other factual assertions in the claim application was denied. It was stated that name of the Respondent appears in the list of persons who have suffered simple injuries and accordingly, payment of Rs.250/- has been made to the Respondent. 5 The Respondent adduced oral and documentary evidence. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,06,873/-. A sum of Rs.31,873/- was granted towards expenditure incurred on treatment, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was granted on account of loss of earning for a period of six months and a sum of Rs.60,000/- was awarded for partial disfigurement of his face and other parts of his body. 6 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that a sum of Rs.15,000/- which was granted on account of loss of income 4 fa.635.95 for a period of six months cannot be granted either under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule(3) of Rule 3 of the said Rules of 1990. He submitted that the compensation granted is excessive. 7 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. I have perused the record of the case. The deposition of the Appellant shows that from 19 th January, 1993 till 15 th February, 1993, the he remained admitted as an indoor patient in a private hospital of Dr.Sapatnekar. He stated that his skin got discoloured and his face got disfigured. It is stated that movement of his left elbow has been restricted. It is stated that he has claimed more than Rs.35,000/- on medical treatment. He stated that he was doing labour work in connection with rice loading and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month from the said work and Rs.5,000/- from the business of Life Insurance Corporation of India. Surprisingly, the cross-examination of the Respondent made by the Advocate for the Appellant runs into only three lines. There is no cross-examination on the nature of the injuries and the fact that the Respondent was earning the aforesaid amounts. 5 fa.635.95 8 As far as medical expenses are concerned, bills have been produced. On perusal of the bills at Exhibits A-4, A-9 and A-11, the Tribunal found that the Respondent has incurred expenses of Rs.31,873/-. There is no reason to find fault with the said finding of fact which is based on the documentary evidence. Looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by the Respondent and virtually unchallenged examination-in- chief, the Tribunal accepted that the income of the Respondent was Rs. 2,500/- per month and the loss of the said income for a period of six months has been awarded quantified at Rs.15,000/-. At this stage, it must be noted that the Respondent produced various medical certificates including the medical certificate dated 23 rd July, 1993 issued by Dr.Sapatnekar in which, he certified that partial permanent disability was 30%. He noted that as a result of the injuries, he is being left with discoloured skin as well as disfigured his face and looks. Though the case could have been covered by Clause 5 of Part II of the Schedule of the said Rules of 1990, the Tribunal has granted lesser compensation of Rs.60,000/- on account of the said injuries. 6 fa.635.95 9 Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, a power is conferred on the Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation payable in respect of the injuries except scheduled injuries resulting into pain and suffering. The compensation or damages will naturally include general and special damages. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that no compensation can be granted in respect of the loss of earnings cannot be accepted. 10 No fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. The compensation granted is reasonable. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 11 Civil Application No. 2468 of 1996 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]