IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1533 of 2008. Date:23.08.2011 Between:- B.Sesha Sai ..Appellant/Applicant And The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. .. Respondent/Respondent JUDGMENT:- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 23 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the order, dated 12.03.2008, in O.A.A.No.286 of 2004 on the file of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench at Secunderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby, the claim of the appellant/applicant under Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Sections 124 and 109 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’) with regard to grant of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a railway accident that took place on 18.10.2004 was partly allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 2 . The appellant/applicant, in order to attend an interview for employment of his daughter, accompanied her to Mumbai and while they were returning to Vijayawada by 7001 Hussain Sagar Express on 17.10.2004 in S-1 coach with berth Nos.65 and 68 and holding second class sleeper ticket No.28718026 with PNR No.480-6848051 ex.Mumbai CST to Vijayawada, the upper berth along with its occupant, all of a sudden fell on him at about 7.30 a.m. on the following day i.e., 18.10.2004 resulting in severe injury to his spine and other minor bodily injuries. He was attended by a doctor at Wadi and later, shifted to Lallaguda Railway Hospital where he was in-patient from 18.10.2004 to 06.11.2004 and thereafter, he was referred to Yashoda Hospital. Due to severe injuries, he was totally paralyzed and forced to take bed rest. 3. The respondent-Railways denied the case of the applicant and stated that the applicant was given first aid by Railway authorities and shifted to Railway Hospital, Lallaguda for further treatment, but stated that the case does not come under Section 124 of the Railways Act, as there is no accident to the train and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation, and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the applicant was a bona fide passenger of the train in question? 2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of an untoward incident of accidental fall from the said train? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-? 4. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the appellant, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined but no documents were marked. 6. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim application by awarding Rs.60,000/- to the applicant. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the applicant. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, proper and legal? 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation to the applicant for non- scheduled injuries; that the appellant, after receipt of injuries, was completely bedridden for 3-4 months; that therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation to a tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, and hence, prays to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Railways contended that as the appellant has not sustained any injuries as mentioned in the schedule, considering the nature of the injuries, the Tribunal rightly granted Rs.60,000/- under head of ‘non- scheduled injuries’; that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order, and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. It is mentioned in the CT Dorsal spine scanning that there is compression fracture involving the antero superior part of the D12 vertebral body. Ex.A-4 is the MRI of cervical spine issued by Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital wherein it is stated that the alignment of spine is normal and the following impressions have been recorded by the Radiologist: “1)Diffuse posterior disc bulges at C5-C6 and C6-C7 levels causing mild to moderate thecal sac compression and 2) Small posterior disc bulges at C3-C4 & C4-C5 levels causing mild thecal indentation”. So, the nature of injuries would reveal that the appellant was admitted in the Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital and had taken treatment for a considerable length of time. Therefore, he must have suffered pain and suffering and he might not be in a position to attend his regular duties as he was doing earlier. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation of Rs.60,000/- and that order needs no interference by this Court. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd August, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.1533 of 2008. Date:23.08.2011 AMD