IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 534 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN MFA.101/2005 Dated 10/12/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------- LIJO JOSE, S/O. JOSE MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, PAYYAVOOR PO, MUTHARIKKULAM, SREEKANDAPURAM (VIA) KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SMT.M.R.SREELETHA, SC, RAILWAYS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON 8/8/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.534 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008. O R D E R Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant in the appeal is the review petitioner. He was the applicant in O.A.No.52/2000 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The appeal was allowed in his favour and it was found that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till payment. 2. The review petition is filed pointing out that the review petitioner had suffered amputation of left leg below hip which is clear from the evidence in this case. Therefore, it is pointed out that the compensation ought to have been awarded either under item 18 or under item 19 of the Schedule. 3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the review petitioner pointed out that in column No.8 of the application, it was clearly pointed out that the applicant sustained grievous injury, amputed left leg below hip, which fact is supported by the wound certificate Ext.P2 and the disability certificate Ext.P3. In Ext.P2 it is clearly stated RP 534/2008 -2- about it as “A/K amputation of left leg” and in Ext.P3 also it is stated that he underwent “Emergency AK amputation.” The reply statement of the respondent is produced as Annexure I. Annexure II is the copy of the deposition of the applicant before the Tribunal. Therein, it is recorded as follows: “With the consent of applicant the amputed left leg was measured from the hip portion and found that the stump remains 8 inch from the hip.” Relying upon this, it is contended that the evidence is clear to the effect that this is a case of amputation of the hip portion above knee and therefore it is either clause 18 or clause 19 that will apply and not clause 20. 4. Even though learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer, we are satisfied on a perusal of the above items of evidence that it is a case where the applicant has suffered amputation below hip and the stump remains 8 inch from the hip as seen recorded by the Tribunal itself. On that aspect in the judgment under appeal as well as in the judgment of this court, no separate finding was entered into. 5. Clauses 18 and 19 of the Schedule of Railway Accidents and Untoward (Incidents) (Compensation) Rules reads as follows: “18. For amputation below hip with stump not exceeding 5” in length measured from tip of greater threnchanter but not beyond middle RP 534/2008 -3- thigh: Rs.2,80,000/- 19. For amputation below middle thigh to 3 1/2” below knee: Rs.2,40,000/-” Going by the above, it is clause 19 that applies to the facts of the case and therefore the applicant will be entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-. 6. Therefore, there is an apparent error in the judgment under review. We allow the review petition and hold that for the injury “amputation below middle thigh to 3 1/2” below knee”, the petitioner herein is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,40,000/-. Hence, he will be entitled for payment of a further amount of Rs.40,000/- than that is already granted. He will also be entitled for payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 10.12.2007, the date of the judgment in M.F.A. No.101/2005, till realisation. The Review Petition is allowed as above. No costs. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/