IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATE. 27-01-2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4299 OF 2004 Between: T. Shankara Rao @ Maheswara Rao. --- Appellant/ Applicant. AND The Union of India, Rep. by its General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta. --- Respondent/ Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4299 OF 2004 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, is directed against the order dated 06-02-2004 passed in O.A.A. No.162 of 2002, on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Secunderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in O.A.A. No.162 of 2002. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The applicant filed O.A.A. No.162 of 2002 claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in an untoward incident of accidental fall at Rayagada railway station from train No.472 Rayagada – Vijayawada passenger on 10-02-2002. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of sustaining injuries i.e. amputation of all the toes except little finger toe of his left leg. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been preferred. 4. The respondent filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the application and contended that the claim is excessive and exaggerated. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial : 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of train No.472 Rayagada – Vijayawada passenger traveling from Rayagada to Vizianagaram on 10-02- 2002? 2) Whether the applicant is a victim of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train at Rayagada railway station and sustained injuries? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.80,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4) To what relief? 6. The applicant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. Ex.A-1 is the original ticket No.73879, Ex.A-2 is the telegram, Ex.A-3 is the accident report, Ex.A-4 and A-5 are the Medical certificates, Ex.A-6 is the Medical Certificate dt. 02-06-2003 and Ex.A-7 is the memo of Chief Station Manager. On behalf of the respondent, the affidavits of S.H. Hembram, Station Superintendent, Rayagada and A. Chandrasekhara Rao, Chief Station Manager as RW.s 1 and 2 were filed and got marked the Memo of Station Superintendent, Rayagada as Ex.R-1. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that by virtue of Clause 28 of the Schedule under Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (compensation) Rules, 1990 for loss of all the toes of one foot Rs.80,000/- can be awarded as compensation and when the applicant got amputation of four toes of his left leg, the same can be brought within the ambit of that loss and the Tribunal failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at an incorrect conclusion and hence the appeal to enhance the compensation amount from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. 8. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that when the applicant got amputation of only four toes of his left leg it would not be brought within the purview of clause 28 of the Schedule under Rule 3 of the said rules and in case of non schedule injuries the compensation is to be limited to only Rs.40,000/- but still the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- in the matter and there are no merits in the appeal. 9. Now the point for consideration in this Appeal is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to enhance the compensation as pleaded? Clause 28 of the schedule under Rule 3 of The Railway Accidents and untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 in respect of compensation payable reads as follows : ‘For loss of all toes of one foot through the metatarso-phalangeal joint – Rs.80,000/-‘ 10. When the applicant got amputation of all the toes of his left leg except that of the little finger toe, it is difficult to bring the matter within the scope of clause 28 of the schedule. Learned counsel for the applicant has not filed any authority in this context to overcome the provisions. Hence, I do not find any merits in the appeal and ultimately the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date: 27-01- 2011. DSH