1 201 fa.747.93 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 747 OF 1993 Satish Shivtarkar. ... Appellant Versus The Union of India. ... Respondent ----- Mr. G.J.Mohanrao for the Appellant. Mr. A.N.Samant for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18 th April, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 2 The Appellant is the original claimant before the Railway Claims Tribunal. 3 While the Appellant was traveling by a suburban local train on 8 th November, 1991, there was an explosion of bomb near Kalyan. The 2 201 fa.747.93 Appellant sustained injuries and in particular injuries to his left eye. A claim for compensation was filed by the Appellant claiming compensation. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal have granted compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest payable thereon in default of deposit. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant sustained complete loss of eyesight as far as left eye is concerned. He submitted that the case will be governed by either clause No.23 or clause No.27 of part III of the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules). He submitted that compensation of Rs.40,000/- is on the lower side. 5 I have considered the submissions. I have perused the record. The medical certificates at Exhibits 6 and 8 do not show that there is a complete loss of vision of the left eye. Certificate at Exhibit 12 dated 7 th July, 1992 issued by Dr.Deepak H. Sadarangani, an Eye 3 201 fa.747.93 Surgeon, is completely contrary to the case of the Appellant regarding complete loss of vision. In view of the evidence in the form of the said certificates, the case is not of any scheduled injury covered by either Item No.23 or Item No.27. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.40,000/- granted by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]