HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.679 OF 2006 Dated 18-2-2011 Between: Somidi Gattaiah. …Appellant. And: The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway,Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.679 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act aggrieved by order passed in O.A.A.No.91 of 2003 dated 1.5.2006 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, Bench at Secunderabad filed under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act read with Section 124A and Section 125 of the Railways Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, following injuries sustained by the appellant in Railway accident. 2. The appellant is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent in the application. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the application. 3. The case set up by the applicant is as follows: On 3-4-2002, while he was travelling from Nagpur by Millennium express holding a valid ticket bearing No.2646 to go to Warangal and in between Bellampalli and Mandamarri Railway Stations, he fell down from the train in motion due to heavy rush of passengers and sustained injuries and he was a bonafide passenger of the train and as such, he is entitled to the compensation claimed. 4. The respondent filed written statement denying the claim of the applicant. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal. 1) Whether the applicant was a bonafide passenger of train No.2646 Millennium express travelling from Nagpur to Warangal on 2-4-2002? 2) Whether the applicant sustained injuries on account of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the train between Bellampalli and Mandamarri Railway Stations? 3) Whether the applicant is entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- on account of sustaining injuries in the alleged untoward incident? 4) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the applicant, he got himself examined as AW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and no documents were marked. 7. Examining the material available on record, the Tribunal observed that the applicant sustained amputation of three fingers of his right hand and as per the evidence of the doctor i.e., A.W.2, as on that day on which day, he (A.W.2) was examined, the applicant could not do any work with his right hand which happened to be permanent disability and basing upon that the Tribunal awarded the said amount with a direction to deposit the amount within 60 days from the date of the order and in case of failure to do so, to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the same amount from the date that would fall due. 8. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the case would fall within the ambit of Rule 3 (2) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 which provides for payment of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- when such person becomes totally incapacitated to do any work, but the Tribunal considered the matter as per items 8 and 34 of part III of Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (compensation) Rules, 1990 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.3,20,000/-for loss of three fingers on one hand for fracture of major bone and Homerus, Radius and Ulma of one limb on the other hand respectively and therefore, accordingly, the appeal is to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the evidence of the doctor, it appears that the applicant was incapacitated to do any work as on the date when the doctor examined him before the Court and in such a case, the observation that the applicant became totally disabled person is incorrect and in any case, there is ambiguity in his evidence in that context and therefore, the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the matter giving liberty to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence which the learned counsel for the appellant has conceded. 10. It is further represented that already the said amounts were disbursed and were withdrawn. It is also represented later on behalf of the respondent that the applicant received the amount awarded towards the full and final settlement of the matter and therefore, he has no locus standi to file the appeal and seek for the enhancement of the compensation. 12. With regards to the claim of the respondent’s advocate that the amounts were withdrawn giving undertaking that it was so done towards full and final settlement of the matter and as such the applicant got no locus standi to file the appeal what is important herein is his actual entitlement and he might have given such undertaking under some compelling circumstances which followed the accident which therefore, need not be given any significance. 13. Therefore it is to be mainly considered as to whether the evidence of the doctor is sufficient to uphold the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant or whether it is ambiguous to come to any conclusion in that behalf and whether the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal to ascertain such ambiguity if any. 14. When the doctor stated that as on the date of his examination before the Court, the applicant was not in a position to do any work and he also stated that the applicant became totally disabled person to ascertain the actual position of the applicant with reference to the fracture of his right hand, the ambiguity is to be cleared. Hence, the matter is to be remanded to the Tribunal to clarify the ambiguity and dispose of the matter independently then. 15. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to clarify the ambiguity giving opportunity to both parties to adduce necessary evidence in that context with reference to the observations made. ___________________________________ Justice G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated 18-2-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.679 OF 2006 Dated 18-2-2011