IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 22-03-2011. PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.301 of 2008 Between: Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Railway NIlayam, Secunderabad. --- Appellant AND G.Vijay Kumar Respondent The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.301 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short, “the Act”) is directed against the order passed in O.A.A.No.53 of 2002 dated 19-11-2007 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench, Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), where under and whereby, application filed by the respondent/applicant under Section 16 of the Act read with Sections 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- following the injuries sustained by the respondent/applicant, was allowed. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondent is the applicant in O.A.A.No. 53 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The facts of the case, as set out by the applicant, are as follows : On 14-02-2002 after attending classes at Gajuwaka, he went to Kothavalasa railway station and purchased a passenger train journey ticket bearing No.47454 from Kothavalasa to Korukonda. While he was trying to aboard train No.244 Visakhapatnam-Srikakulam MEMU passenger in general compartment, he slipped and fell down accidentally from the train in motion as a result of which his left leg was cut and separated below knee. Immediately he was shifted to Government hospital, Kothavalasa and from there he was shifted to King George Hospital for treatment. Hence the application was filed. 4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the claims of the applicants with a plea to dismiss the application. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial and disposal : 1) Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.244 Visakhapatnam – Korukonda MEMO passenger, traveling from Kothavalasa to Korukonda on 14-02-2002? 2) Whether the application sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Kothavalasa due to jerks of train? 3) Whether the application is entitled to claim Rs.2,40,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he himself got examined as A.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked. 7. Examining the material available, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the applicant and awarded the compensation claimed directing the respondent to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which to carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of the order till the date of realization of the amount. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been preferred. 8. The main question involved in the appeal is as to whether the question of payment of compensation would be covered by clause 19 or clause 22 of the Schedule under Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) amendment Rules, 1997(for short ‘the Rules’). 9. As per the medical record i.e. discharge ticket marked as Ex.A.4, the respondent-appellant received communited fracture of 1/3rd of both the bones of his left leg as a result of which amputation below the knee of the left leg was done on 18-02-2002. 10. By virtue of the clause 19 of the Rules: for amputation below middle thigh to 3-1/2” below knee Rs.2,40,000/- is to be paid and as per the clause 22: for amputation below knee with stump exceeding 5” amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is to be paid. It is not a case of amputation of any part of the thigh of the applicant to attract the 19th clause. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the 22nd clause is applicable here. 11. Therefore granting the compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- as per the 19th clause is not proper and accordingly necessary modification of the order is to be made. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal awarding the compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- in favour of the respondent/applicant is set aside and the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- is awarded to the respondent-applicant under the clause 22 of Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) amendment Rules, 1997. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 22-03-2011. VJL