IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.476 of 2005 REKHA SEKSARIA Versus UNION OF INDIA ----------- For the appellant: - Shri Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent:- Shri Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. 7. 06.08.2008. Appellant Rekha Seksaria has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16.8.2005 passed by the bench of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna, consisting of Mr. V.K. Sahay, Vice Chairman, RCT/Kolkata at Patna and Mr. N. K. Singh, Member (Judicial) RCT/Ghaziabad, in Application No. OA 00431 of 2002, for enhancement of compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000/- (Thirty five thousand) by way of compensation to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of order failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall also be paid on the principle amount from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 8. 12. 2002 till realisation. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and learned counsel for the Union of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the claim application before the Railway Claims Tribunal is stated as follows. The appellant purchased a ticket bearing PNR No. 632-4143576, in AS-5 3AC Coach on berth Nos. 58, 59 and 60 by 2301 Up Kolkata Rajdhani Express and was travelling on 9.9.2002 from Kolkata to New Delhi. She boarded the train at 2 Kolkata on 9.9.2002 which left for New Delhi at 5.40 P.M.on the same day. The said train met with a serious accident at about 11 P.M. and derailed near Rafiganj Railway Station in Bihar and the appellant’s coach had fallen into the river from a height of 50 feet and so the appellant’s coach was badly damaged & smashed. She was squeezed in the ‘Malba’(debris) alongwith luggage of other passengers. She suffered multiple injuries on her abdomen, hands, legs and other parts of her body due to falling of the heavy luggage and baggage of other passengers as well as broken glasses and parts of the said coach. . She was not able to locate her husband and children. She was also carrying pregnancy of five months which was miscarriaged due to that accident. The appellant and her family members were rescued by the rescue team on 10.9.2002 at 8 A.M. after cutting the iron sheet of the coach with gas cutter. She was taken to Rafiganj Hospital, Rafiganj, Bihar and thereafter to A.N.M. Medical College and Hospital, Gaya. She was admitted on 10.9.2002 at 11.05 A.M. in A.N.M. Medical College & Hospital at Gaya. Because of lack of proper treatment there, the relatives of the appellant shifted her to Patna on 11.9.2002 at 5 A.M. for better treatment. The appellant was examined by Dr. S.S. Jha and Dr. Veena Mishra in their clinic situated at Boring Road, Patna, who admitted and treated her in Mahalaxami Maternity Center, Mohanpur, New Punaichak, Patna. She was treated by Dr. S. S. Jha for compound fracture medial lateral malleolus by open reduction and internal fixation done with screws & P.O.P. cast applied. Dr. Veena Mishra terminated the non-viable foetus by partially applying medicine on 11.9.2002 and D & C under Penthamethol on 12.9.2002. She was finally discharged by the said Doctors on 15.9.2002 and she went to New Delhi 3 along with her family members. Exhibit 1 series would show that the appellant was admitted in Mahalaxhmi Maternity Centre, Patna, for further treatment. Then she filed her claim case through her husband giving all her medical certificates. The respondents Union of the India through General Manager Eastern Railways, Kolkata, filed written statement and the learned Railway Claims Tribunal after framing of the issues examined pleadings of both the sides, records, papers, etc. and on consideration of evidence decided the issues which were framed as follows: I. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger in Rajdhani Experss on the date of accident? II. Whether the applicant sustained injuries in the aforesaid train accident? If so, what is the nature and extent of injuries? III. To what amount of compensation, if any, the applicant is entitled? IV. Relief? The learned Claims Tribunal decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant and also held that the appellant did not furnish any details of luggage and other articles which have been lost and so no compensation was given on that account. It was further held that the appellant was entitled to recover compensation only for the aforesaid two injuries, namely, fracture of right ankle and termination of pregnancy and determined the quantum of compensation at Rs. 10,000/-(Ten thousand) for Injury no. 1 i.e. fracture of right ankle and Rs25,000/-(Twenty-five thousand )for the second injury i.e.DNC operation, total of which comes to Rs. 35,000/-(Thirty five thousand) including all the medical expenses. 4 Learned counsel for the appellant has urged for enhancement in the compensation which was not taken into consideration in its right perspective. Learned counsel for the Union of India has also not disputed so far assertion in respect of termination of pregnancy of the appellant is concerned and also has referred III of the Schedule to Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)Rules, 1990, as amended in 1997, which provides that the amount of compensation payable to the applicant in respect of injuries resulting in pain and suffering shall be such as the Claims Tribunal may after taking into consideration medical evidence, besides other circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable and that the total compensation in respect of all such injuries should not exceed Rs. 80,000/- (Eighty thousand). Having gone through the averments made here and contention raised on behalf of the appellant and Union of India and also having considered the fact that the manner in which the appellant was subjected to sustain multiple injuries and faced adverse situation, the compensation awarded to the appellant cannot be said to be adequate. No passenger travelling by Rajdhani Express from Kolkata to Delhi could be presumed to have been travelling without any luggage and baggage. In such situation, assertion of the appellant that she lost her belongings can not be disbelieved. The value of the articles, although, not given but must have been assessed, according to the status of the passenger, and the manner in which she was rescued and brought for her treatment in A.N.M. Medical College & Hospital, at Gaya and then having no medical facility there, she was brought 5 to Patna at her cost where private Orthopaedician as also Gynecologist were consulted for the purpose of her treatment and termination of pregnancy of seventeen weeks, cannot be said to have been adequately compensated by payment of sum of Rs. 35,000/-(Thirty five thousand) only. Learned counsel for the Railways has also not disputed this fact so far as lesser payment of compensation is concerned. Law provides that in such situation, maximum amount should be Rs. 80,000/-(Eighty thousand) plus Rs. 5,000/-(Five thousand) for loss of luggage and valuables = Rs. 85,000/ (Eighty five thousand), which appears to me adequate and just compensation which may be paid to the appellant. With the aforesaid modification in payment of compensation, this appeal is allowed with a direction to the respondents to make payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 85,000/- (Eighty Five thousand) with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing of this claim application till realisation, as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. SKBOSE (Subash Chandra Jha)