Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1344 (PAT)

Gauri Shankar Sah v. Union of India

2013-11-28

JYOTI SARAN

body2013
ORAL ORDER None appears on behalf of the appellant. 2. Mr. Binod Jee Verma, has appeared for the respondent-Railways. 3. I have heard Mr. Binod Jee Verma, learned counsel for the Railways and I have perused the materials on records. 4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the Member (Technical), Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in Claim Application No. O.A. 0009 of 2010 whereby the claim case has been rejected. 5. Summary of facts leading to the case in brief is that the 16 years old son of the claimant namely Narendra Kumar was travelling by 302 DN from Kudra to Sasaram. It is the contention of the claimant that while the train was approaching the Sasaram Station, due to heavy rush and jostling amongst the passengers, the son of the claimant was pushed out of the moving train and while falling therefrom, his left leg came under the moving train and got amputated knee below. In an unconscious condition, the injured person was taken to Sadar hospital Sasaram but considering his condition he was referred to BHU, Varanarasi for better treatment. 6. The claim case was set up by the father Gauri Shankar Sah seeking compensation for the amputation of the left leg of his son Narendra Kumar knee down which had made him incapacitated to do his regular duties. 7. The railways appeared and filed a perfunctory written statement. Save and except for denial of the statement made in the claim application, nothing worthwhile was stated by the railways to contest the claim. There is in fact nothing in the stand taken by the railways in their reply, to bring the case within the parameters of the proviso to Section 124A of the Railways Act or to demonstrate that the untoward incident is on account of negligence of the injured himself. No evidence was led by the Railways to support the denials. This role in fact has been taken over by the Tribunal itself. By casting mere suspicion on the bona fides of the claimant to file the claim case and in absence of any ticket in possession of the injured, the claim case has been rejected. 8. Ext.2 is the statement of the victim himself recorded at the Sasaram Town Police Station on 29.1.2009 which was forwarded to the G.R.P. Sasaram for its registration. 8. Ext.2 is the statement of the victim himself recorded at the Sasaram Town Police Station on 29.1.2009 which was forwarded to the G.R.P. Sasaram for its registration. The Tribunal merely noticing some typographical error in the date, has cast aspersion as to its genuineness which is wholly unwarranted. Even when the Railways have not set up any case questioning the genuineness of the police report, on a mere overwriting appearing on the same, the Tribunal has proceeded to term it as a case of ‘tampering’. Despite the statement of the G.R.P. requiring its registration and for follow up action and in absence of evidence to contest the claim of the injured of amputation of his left knee under the wheels of the train, the Tribunal has failed the claimants in proving the untoward incident. The medical reports are on the records of the proceedings and there is no dispute regarding the amputation of the left leg of the injured knee down. The certification by the Institute of Medical Sciences BHU Varanasi (Ext. 3) by itself is sufficient to prove that the leg of injured Narendra Kumar was amputated in a railway traffic accident. 9. In the circumstances aforementioned, the rejection of the claim by the Tribunal is on conjectures and even in absence of any evidence being led by the railways to dispel the claim. The order impugned thus cannot be upheld and is accordingly set aside and the claim is upheld. 10. It is now to be seen as to what would be the compensation admissible to the claimant in respect of the injuries sustained by his son. 11. In exercise of powers vested under Section 129 of the Railways Act, the Central Government has framed the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘rules’), which inter alia in its schedule provides for compensation payable for death and injuries. Item No. 22 thereof relates to an amputation below knee with stump exceeding 5” and provides for a compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-. 12. In view of the stipulation made at Item No. 22 of the Schedule to the ‘rules’, the compensation admissible to the claimants is assessed at Rs. 1,60,000/- and the same is to be paid to the claimant together with interest at 9% payable from the date of filing of the claim case i.e. 15.02.2010 until the date of its realization. In view of the stipulation made at Item No. 22 of the Schedule to the ‘rules’, the compensation admissible to the claimants is assessed at Rs. 1,60,000/- and the same is to be paid to the claimant together with interest at 9% payable from the date of filing of the claim case i.e. 15.02.2010 until the date of its realization. 13. The appeal is allowed. 14. Let the Lower Court Records received in connection with Claim Application No. O.A. 0009 of 2010 be returned to Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna forthwith.