THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3820 of 2002 ORDER: The respondent filed O.A.A.No.198 of 2000 before the Secunderabad Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation. He pleaded that he purchased a Train ticket on 08.02.2000 with a view to travel from Rajahmundry to Secunderabad by Gauthami Express and when he was standing at the door, his legs sustained injuries, when it hit a tractor-trailor that was standing at Denduluru railway level crossing. It is stated that the injury was so serious that the big toe of right leg had to be amputated and that he was treated as in patient between 9th and 28th of February 2000 in Vijayawada Railway Hospital. The application was opposed by the appellant by pleading that the injury occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the respondent. It was further alleged that the injury is minor in nature and the compensation claimed by the respondent is excessive. Through its order, dated 13.12.2001, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- . The same is challenged in this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant admits that the respondent was a bona fide passenger in Gauthami Express. Under certain extraordinary circumstances, he sustained injury to his right leg. He was standing at the door and when the train was passing at a level crossing, his right leg came in contact with a tractor-trailor, which was standing very close to the train. Obviously there was negligence on the part of the Railway administration in ensuring that the track is not properly protected. The respondent had to undergo treatment for quite a long time. The injury was no doubt a bit serious, but since it does not occur in the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (for short ‘the Rules’), the fixed compensation could not be awarded. The Tribunal had to exercise its discretion under Rule 3 of the Rules. It is not a case of loss of toe instantly at the accident. The toe was crushed and he had to undergo treatment almost for two weeks. Unable to save the toe, the authorities of the Hospital have amputated it. The amputation did not only result in deformity but also affected the ability of the respondent to walk. Apart from that, he incurred huge expenditure for treatment. The Tribunal had to restrain itself on account of the ceiling put in Rule 3 of the Rules, which is to the effect that for non-schedule injuries, the amount of compensation shall not exceed 40,000/-. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 19.08.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3820 of 2002 Date: 19.08.2010 JSU