IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 MFA.No. 19 of 2004(C) -------------------- OA.50/2001 of RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- SAIDALAVI, KALLUDUMBIL HOUSE WOMANS COLLEGE ROAD, MONGAM, MALAPPURAM BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SMT.M.R.SREELETHA, SC, RAILWAYS SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU,SR.SC.RAILWAYS FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A. NO: 19 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th Day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Joseph Francis J. This appeal under Section 23 o f the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is filed by the applicant in O.A.No. 58 of 2001 on the file of the Railways Claims Tribunal, Ernakualm. The respondent herein is the respondent in that application, which was filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows. Appellant was a traveller in Train No:6602, Mangalapuram Chennai Mail from Kozhikode to Pothannur on 22.6.2001 and this Train met with an accident by falling down from the Kadalundi over bridge. Due to this accident, the appellant sustained crush injuries to his knee right leg and contaminated lascerated wound on the right leg and comminuted fracture lower right tibia, for curing of which, he underwent medical as well as surgical treatment in the Baby Memorial Hospital, Calicut from 22.6.2001 to 8.8.2001. During the course of his medical treatment, amputation below knee right leg was done. Appellant is feeling pain M.F.A. NO: 19 OF 2004 : 2 : from the amputated portion of right leg now and then. Now he is physically disabled. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 3. The respondent filed reply statement admitting the accident and contents that the compensation claimed is excessive. In the Railway Tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1, P2 and P2(a) were marked. The Railway Tribunal, on considering evidence, passed an award in favour the applicant for realisation of Rs.2,40,000/- from the respondent with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition i.e., 2.11.01 till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that due to the accident the right leg of the appellant was amputated, below knee and he also suffered a fracture of calcaneum of his left leg. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that both these injuries are severe and grievous in nature. The Tribunal ought to have granted the entire amount claimed by the appellant. 6. The appellant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposes that as M.F.A. NO: 19 OF 2004 : 3 : a result of the accident, his right leg was cut and removed above knee, but some stumps remained extended and that the calcaneum of left leg was fractured. PW1 deposes that his movement is arrested because of amputation of right leg and fracture of the calcaneum of left foot. PW1 deposes that before the accident he was a Salesman at ABC Shop, Calicut dealing with automobile spares. His monthly remuneration was Rs.1,200/- After the accident, he lost his employment. Ext. P1 is the discharge summary issued from Baby Memmorial hospital, Calicut, which shows that due to the accident the appellant sustained comminuted fracture on right tibia and fracture of calcaneum of left leg. Ext.P1 further shows that below knee amputation was done on 30.6.01. It is true that the appellant has not produced any disability certificate from any qualified Orthopaedic Surgeon certifying his physical disability. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that remanding of the case for assessing of disability will cause unnecessary delay. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the decision reported in Abdul Kareem V. Union of India (ILR 2008(3) Kerala M.F.A. NO: 19 OF 2004 : 4 : 127), in which it was held that any accident depriving the injured from all capacity to do any work, Rs.4,00,000/- is the compensation payable to the injured on account of the injury, which deprived him of capacity to do any work under Rule 3(2) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule, 1990. From Ext.P1 discharge certificate it is clear that the appellant cannot do normal avocation without the help of others. 8. Considering the medical evidence on record, it is evident that apart from amputation of right leg below knee, there is fracture of calcaneum on left leg of the appellant. Since both these injuries jointly prevent the appellant from doing any work in a reasonable manner, we are of the view that this case will come under Rule 3(2) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rule 1990 amended with effect from November 1997. It reads as follows: “The amount of compensation payable for injury not specified in Part III of the Schedule but which, in the opinion of the Claims Tribunal is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do any work, shall be (rupee four lakhs).” M.F.A. NO: 19 OF 2004 : 5 : 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to get Rs.4,00,000/- as total compensation with 6% interest from the date of application. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is allowed to get an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as total compensation with 6% interest from the date of the application till the date of realisation from the respondent. The parties are directed to suffer their respective cost in this appeal. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. dl/