JUDGMENT : N.N. Mithal, J.—103 UP Delux Express train met with an accident near Naini, Allahabad on the night of 10th October, 1977 causing death and injuries to a large number of passengers. The appellant was one of the injured of that ill fated train'. Soon after the accident he was first admitted to Moti Lal Nehru Hospital, Allahabad at about 6 AM where his injuries were recorded which are 11 in number. From that hospital he was later on shifted to Swamp Rani Nehru Hospital, Allahabad at about 2 PM and remained hospitalised till 23rd October, 1977 as an indoor patient He remained under the treatment of Dr. N K. Mehndi Ratta who on examination found that he was suffering from wrist drop besides other injuries. 2. When the matter was taken up before the Adhoc Claims Commissioner he found that the wrist drop had developed due to injuries suffered by him in the accident and this finding is no longer under challenge The Claims Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs 10,000/- by way of compensation and feeling aggrieved this appeal has been filed by the injured. 3. Sri S.U. Khan, who argued the appeal for the appellant, submitted that the Claims Commissioner should have awarded compensation under Rule 6(2) of the Railway Accident Compensation Amendment Rule, 1974. His submission was that under that rule even though the injury of the nature, referred to in part-2 of the schedule may not have been caused to an injured, yet if any other injury caused to him was such as to deprive him of 'all capacity' to do 'any' work the same compensation would be awardable as is set out in part II of the schedule i.e. Rs. 50,000/-. The argument is countered by Sri Lalji Sinha, appearing for the Railway and his submission was that before the advantage of Sub-Rule 2 can be taken it must be established that the injured had lost all capacity to do any work. He laid emphasis on the word 'all' and 'any' occurring in the rule. In order to appreciate the respective argument it would be better to quote the relevant portions of Rule 6 as under: 6. Amount of Compensation (1) The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries shall be specified in the Schedule. He laid emphasis on the word 'all' and 'any' occurring in the rule. In order to appreciate the respective argument it would be better to quote the relevant portions of Rule 6 as under: 6. Amount of Compensation (1) The amount of compensation payable in respect of death or injuries shall be 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, is such as to deprive a person of all capacity to do any work, shall be rupees fifty thousands. (3) The amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury (other than in injury specified in the Schedule or referred to in Sub-rule (2) resulting in pain and sufferings, shall be such as the Claims Commissioner may, after taking into considering 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 each such . injury. Provided further that the total compensation in respect of all such injuries shall not exceed rupees twenty thousand. (4) x x x (5) x x x 4. A reading of this rule will, therefore, show that the compensation payable either for death or injuries shall be such as is specified in the Schedule. According to Sub-clause 2 even if the injury suffered is not one of six which are enumerated in part II the injured may still be entitled to a compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/-if the nature of injuries suffered by him was such as would deprive him of all capacity to do any work. It would, therefore be necessary to determine as to what is meant by the expression 'all capacity to do any work' employed in this sub-clause. It is apparent that Rule 2 is not confined to the six injuries as are enumerated in part 11 of the schedule but may include some other injuries also. But the nature of such injury necessarily must be such as would deprive a person of' all capacity to do any work'. A look on the injuries mentioned in part II would show that each of them relates to total loss of a limb or to the case of total deafness. But the nature of such injury necessarily must be such as would deprive a person of' all capacity to do any work'. A look on the injuries mentioned in part II would show that each of them relates to total loss of a limb or to the case of total deafness. Therefore, the real purpose behind Rule 2 appears to be that there should be total loss of capacity and not where a person may still be able to do some work despite the injuries caused to him. The submission of Sri Sinha appears to be more logical. What is necessary for applying Rule 2 is that the injury should of such a nature which totally deprives a person of his capacity to do any work. He must lose capacity to do any work completely. The word' any in relation to the work cannot be confined to such work only as the person was doing before the injury was caused to him. If a person retains some capacity to do the work be cannot claim maximum compensation payable under part II of the schedule. The view that I have taken above also appears to be justified from a reading of sub-clause 3 of the rule. Rule 3 also refers to injuries in addition to those that are mentioned in Sub-Rule 2 or in the schedule meaning thereby such injuries as are neither mentioned in part II or III of the schedule and also those which are not covered by Sub-Rule 2 i.e. those injuries which are not included among the six enumerated in Part II but is such as may totally incapacitate a person from doing any work. Sub-Rule 3, therefore, makes the provision very comprehensive and enlarges the scope in relation to the injuries. Compensation can, therefore, be awarded by the Claims Tribunal in respect of the injuries that are not enumerated in Part II or III or the schedule at all; But in such cases the Claims Commissioner is required to take into consideration the totality of circumstances to determine reasonable amount of compensation. This rights is however, subject to two conditions laid down in the proviso i e. compensation will be payable for each injury and that the sum total of compensation shall not exceed Rs. 20,000/-. 5. This rights is however, subject to two conditions laid down in the proviso i e. compensation will be payable for each injury and that the sum total of compensation shall not exceed Rs. 20,000/-. 5. Thus if the injuries caused to the appellant were neither covered under Sub-rule (2) nor was one included in Part II or III of the Schedule, then in that case the Commissioner has to form his own opinion about the reasonable amount of compensation to be paid for the injuries caused to a person in the Railway accident. 6. The injury report shows that the appellant bad suffered 11 injuries and for each of them he will be entitled to some compensation. Injuries caused to him have resulted in developing wrist drop in the right band of the appellant because of which he cannot raise his wrist upwards. Consequently substantial impairment in his capacity has been caused although it may not deprive him completely from doing any work. None of the injuries caused to the appellant find mention in the schedule and, therefore, it was necessary for the Commissioner to have determined reasonable amount of compensation in respect of each of them. This has not been done and it has awarded lump sum amount of Rs. 10,060/- for all the injuries in my opinion, the amount of compensation awarded is rather on the lower side and the amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be reasonable only in regard to injuries S, 6 and 7. For the other injuries also the claimant was entitled to . at least at the rate of Rs. 500/- for each of them on account of pain and suffering caused to him. Thus in addition to Rs. 10,000/- the appellant will be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 4000/- i.e. a total of Rs. 14,000/- by way of compensation. 7. It was also urged that the appellant has not been awarded any interest which he would be entitled to in view of the fact that Rule 27 makes the CP.C. applicable and as such u/s 34 of the Code interest should be awarded on the amount of compensation. The argument appears to be totally misplaced. Rule 27 only makes C.P.C. applicable in so far as the procedure to be followed before the Commissioner is concerned. The argument appears to be totally misplaced. Rule 27 only makes C.P.C. applicable in so far as the procedure to be followed before the Commissioner is concerned. The rule itself lays down the Commissioner shall follow the procedure laid down in the CPC for the trial of suit if there is no provision made in the rules in that behalf of the provisions made therein are insufficient. There is no provision for awarding of interest and as such the claimant is not entitled to get any interest by taking aid of Rule 27. 8. In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation is enhanced to Rs. 14,000/-. However, in the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs of this appeal.