IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION 2855 OF 1986 DECIDED ON : 12th August, 2008 Union of India ....Petitioner Versus Smt.Latika Sinha and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: None for the petitioner Mr.A.S.Randhawa, Advocate, for the respondent 01- Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2- To be referred to the reporters or not? 3- Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J The present judgement will dispose of CWP 2855 of 1986 as well as FAO 411 of 1986. Union of India has challenged the award dated 13-12-1985 passed by the Claims Commissioner Northern Railway, Chandigarh, whereby he allowed the compensation of Rs.43,000/-in favour of respondent No.1 on account of injuries suffered in accident which took place on the nights of 20th/21st October, 1983. The appeal has been filed by the victim claiming higher compensation. So far as writ petition is concerned, I find that section 82(F)(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 specifically provides for an appeal. On this short ground alone, the writ petition is not maintainable. As far as the appeal is concerned, it would be necessary to reproduce rule 6 of the Railway Accident (Compensation) Rules, 1950:- “Part-III Rates for compensation:- CWP 2855 of 1986 --2-- Amount of compensation:-(1)The amount of compensation payable in respect of death and injuries shallbe specified in the schedule; (2)The amount of compensation payable for an injury not specified in part II of the schedule but which in the opinion of the claims Commissioner in such as to deprive a person of full capacity to do any work, shall be Rs.one lakh. (3)The amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury other than an injury specified in the schedule or as referred to in sub-rule(2) resulting in pain suffering, shall be such as the Claims Commissioner may, after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable. Provided that if more than one injury is caused by the same accident, compensation shall be payable in respect of such injury; Provided further that the total compensation in respect of all such injuries shall not exceed Rs.20,000/- (4) Where compensation has been paid for any injury which is less than the amount which would have been payable as compensation if the injured person had died and the person subsequently dies as a result of the injury, a further compensation equal to the difference between the amount payable for death and that already paid shall become payable; (5)Compensation for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods or arrivals shallbe paid to such extent as the Commissioner may in all circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable.” In view of sub-rule (3) and the second proviso thereto, it is clear that the maximum compensation payable to the appellant for all the injuries suffered by her was statutorily fixed at Rs.20,000/- which is not to suggest that the appellant could not be held entitled to more compensation. However, if she wanted to claim compensation more than statutory fixed amount, it would have been open to her to file civil suit for the same. Therefore, this Court cannot enhance the compensation in appeal. In the result, CWP 2855 of 1986 as well as FAO 411 of l1986 are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Sd/- [Ajay Tewari] Judge 12-08-2008 mandeepkaur