Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Shambhaji Rao on 26 May, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 152/2014
% 26th May, 2014
UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Vibhu Shankar, Advocate.
versus
SHAMBHAJI RAO ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.9294/2014 (condonation of delay in filing the appeal)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 23 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. C.M stands disposed of.
FAO No.152/2014
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 09.1.2014, by which the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the respondent No.1/claimant for three fractures suffered. The relevant paras are 12 and FAO 152/2014 Page 1 of 3 13 of the impugned judgment which reads as under:-
"Issue No. 04.
12. As per the discharge summary issued by the JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi (Ext. A-10). Shambhaji Rao was admitted on 27.05.2012 with a history of type 2 nd pelvic injury in the left side. There was multiple fractures, effecting the left ilium, right side sup/inf puicrami and S1 vertebrae. He was discharge after treatment on 11.07.2012 As per the disability certificate, issued by the District Hospital, Gwalior. (Ext. A-12) he is now 40% disable. Appearing before the Tribunal on 15.03.2013, Shambhaji reported that the injury has crippled him. I have no reason of disbelieve him because multiple fractures at the age of the 66, is bound to effect his quality of life.
13. In terms of item 30 of schedule Under Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules 1990, Shambhaji Rao Yadav is entitled to receive Rs. 2.40 Lakh for fracture of three major bones @ Rs. 80,000/- for each fracture. The gentleman had undergone long treatment at AIIMS Delhi and continues to receive treatment even now. I have no doubt in my mind that he had spent good amount of money on his treatment. He is therefore, required to be compensated for his long stay in hospital which involves cost of medicine and other incidental expenditure. So, to my mind, a total amount of Rs. 3 Lakh will meet the ends of justice in this case. Thus, the applicant is entitled to receive Rs. 3 Lakh as compensation from the respondent railway."
2. The only argument urged on behalf of the appellant/Railway is that as per entry 30, a total sum of Rs.80,000/- is given for all fractures and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in multiplying the amount of Rs.80,000/- three times.
3. The argument urged on behalf of the appellant is misconceived FAO 152/2014 Page 2 of 3 because entry 30 of Rule 3 of the Railway Accident and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules 1990 provides for grant of Rs.80,000/- for one fracture and not for total of all the fractures.
4. Since in the present case, there are 3 separate fractures at three places as stated in para 12 of the impugned judgment, therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal that only Rs.80,000/- had to be awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
C.M.Nos. 9292/2014 & 9293/2014 Since the appeal is dismissed, these two applications are also dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MAY 26, 2014 KA FAO 152/2014 Page 3 of 3