KULDEEP SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA

$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 4th December, 2023
+ FAO 37/2021
KULDEEP SINGH ….. Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajan Sood, Ms. Ashima
Sood and Ms. Megha Sood,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Mohit Sharma, Sr. Panel
Counsel
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 3085/2021 (Delay of 400 days in filing)

1. This application is moved on behalf of the appellant seeking
condonation of delay of 400 days in filing of the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application and considering that the
appellant is an illiterate person, hailing from an impoverished
background whose legal rights have been infringed and also for the
fact that the appellant suffered serious fractures on his face, the delay
is condoned.
3. The application stands disposed of.

FAO 37/2021

4. This is an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 19871 seeking setting aside/ quashing of the impugned

1 RCT Act

order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal2.
5. In a nutshell, the appellant was injured while travelling from
train as a bonafide passenger on 27.11.2017 from Delhi Azadpur to
Sandal Kalan, holding a valid Monthly Season Ticket3 no. 07829463.
He fell out of the moving train at Narela Railway Station and suffered
grievous injuries all over his body in addition to injuries sustained on
his head and face.
6. The learned RCT vide impugned order/judgment dated
25.04.2019 while considering the issue of amount of compensation
payable and relief, made the following observations: –

2 RCT
3 MST

“3. As per DD No.l4B dated 29.01.2018 (Ex.A-2), it has been
brought out that the injured (applicant) was firstly taken to Raja
Harish Chander Memorial Hospital, Narela; thereafter was taken to
ESI Hospital, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi; thereafter was taken to
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi; and lastly was taken to FIMS
Hospital, Sonipat. The discharge summary of FIMS Hospital
(Ex.A-5) shows that the injured (applicant) was brought there on
28.11.2017 at 12.31 p.m. and was discharged on 02.12.2017 at
09.35 a.m.; with diagnosis of “fracture ZMC right side, fracture
palate and fracture coronoid, process of right side of mandible and
multiple tooth fracture”. The nature and extent of injuries brought
out in the aforesaid discharge summary are all non-scheduled
injuries, localized in the jaw, palate and face. The quantum of
compensation is, therefore, to be decided by the Tribunal taking
into account the principles stated in Rule 3(3) of the Railway
Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules.

4. The injured appeared as AW-1 before this Tribunal on
14.03.2019 and was cross-examined. In his cross- examination, he
deposed that he sustained injuries only on his face and there was no
other injury on any other part of his body. He also deposed that two
months later to the incident, he was in a position to join back his
duty and that there has been no problem faced by him in
performing his duty. It can, therefore, be inferred that the nature
and extent of injuries sustained by him have not resulted in any

permanent impairment/ disability and were of temporary nature,
which have been heeled with proper treatment. Nonetheless
considering the fact that the applicant was hospitalized in different
hospitals for about five days, he must have suffered pain in moving
his jaws and palate in the initial phrases of his suffering and would
have also incurred expenditure in different hospitals, a quantum of
Rs.50,000/- for the aforesaid non-scheduled injuries is reckoned to
be a reasonable, fair and adequate compensation. Thus, the
applicant is entitled to receive Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the
aforesaid non-scheduled injuries. Issue Nos.3 & 4 are answered
accordingly.
Conclusion:-
O R D E R
5. There shall be an award of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) alongwith interest @ 9% (Nine per cent) per annum from the
date of accident till the date of payment. Having regard to the
social and economic status and level of literacy of the applicant, I
believe that the applicant has the means of managing his own
finances. I make no direction for retention of any portion of the
amount of compensation. As such, the entire amount of
compensation shall be deposited in his Saving Bank A/c at or near
the place of his residence within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.”

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the impugned
order is contrary in law and the compensation of Rs.50,000/- is on a
lower side. Learned counsel for the appellant alluded to Rule 3 of the
Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules,
1990 which provides as under: –

“3. Amount of compensation.-(1) The amount of compensation
payable in respect of death or injures, shall be as specified in the
Schedule.
(2) The amount of compensation payable for an injury not
specified in Part II or Part III of the Schedule but which, in the
opinion of the Claims Tribunal is such as to deprive a person of all
capacity to do any work, shall be Rupees Eight Lakhs.

(3) The amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury
(other than an injury specified in the Schedule or referred to in sub-
rule (2) resulting in pain and suffering, shall be such as the Claims

Tribunal may after taking Into consideration medical evidence,
besides other 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 One Lakh Sixty Thousand.
(4) Where compensation has been paid for any injury which is less
than the amount which would have been payable as compensation
if the injured person had died and the person subsequently dies as a
result of the injury, compensation equal to the difference between
the amount payable for death and a further already paid shall
become payable.
(5) Compensation for loss, destruction or deterioration of goods or
animals shall be paid to such extent as the Claims Tribunal may, in
all the circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable.”

8. It was urged by learned counsel for the appellant that although
appellant sustained injuries which are classified as „unscheduled
injuries”, there is no denying the fact that he was treated for as many
as four different kind of injuries on the face/head viz., fracture ZMC
right side, fracture palate, fracture coronoid, process of right side
mandible and multiple tooth fractures. It was, therefore, urged that in
terms of conjoint reading of proviso (1) & (2) of Rule 3 (3) of the
aforesaid rules, each distinct injury was required to be assessed
independently and the total amount of statutory compensation of
Rs.1,60,000/- should have been awarded.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Railways urged
that the appellant was working as a sweeper and he had only suffered
facial injuries which were not in the nature of severe facial
disfigurement as enlisted in clause 5 of the Schedule to Rule 3. It was
argued that the learned RCT committed no error in taking a broad

view of the matter and awarded just and reasonable compensation.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset,
the impugned order dated 25.04.2019 cannot be sustained in law. The
nature of injuries suffered by the appellant tells its own tale. Proviso 1
to Rule 3 (3) is specific that each injury has to be assessed separately
for compensation. Although the 04 injures were suffered on the head /
face but each injury was of a different nature and required different
kind of medical treatment. Furthermore, each injury took its own time
in the healing process.
11. Incidentally, there is no challenge to the deposition of AW-1/
appellant in the cross examination that he could not join his duties for
two months.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated
25.04.2019 cannot be sustained in law, the same is set aside to the
extent that the appellant shall be entitled to a total statutory
compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of incident till its realization. However, the amount of
compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at such rate already paid to
him shall be adjusted. The compensation be paid to the appellant with
interest as aforesaid within a period of two months, failing which, the
respondent Railway shall be liable to pay the same @ 15 % per annum
from the date of this order till its realization to the appellant.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
DECEMBER 04, 2023/ss