IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 688 of 2003() ------------------------------- OA.196/2002 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT: ------------------------ M.C. RISHINATHAN, SREEHARI, KOTTOOLI POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU,SR.SC.RAILWAYS FOR R1 SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL, SC, RAILWAYS THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.F.A.No. 688 OF 2003 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 196/2002. Unfortunately the claimant was a passenger in the ill-fated train, which fell into the Kadalundi river on 22.6.2001 and he claimed a compensation of Rs. 80,000/-. He had claimed compensation for luggage at Rs. 25,000/- and the balance is for the injuries sustained. He had undergone medical treatment for one day in the Medical College Hospital and he had some pain over the elbow and mild tenderness. The claimant was travelling as a passenger in the second class compartment. He was proceeding to Chennai to see of his daughter who was going abroad. The tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- for personal injury and Rs. 10,000 for loss of luggage. The learned counsel would contend the observation of the tribunal has to be taken into effect and more compensation has to be given for the lost luggage. It is very difficult in this type of cases to assess the damage, for the reason that there is no platform to reveal the things you carry while you are going on a short trip to M.F.A.No. 688/2003 -2- another place. So only the totality of the circumstances, the class by which you travelled and the purpose for which you travelled etc. can be taken into consideration and a probable amount be given. I feel the said discretion had been properly exercised by the tribunal and therefore further interference is not call for. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm