Telangana High Court
M Srinu, R.R.Dist vs Union Of India, Secunderabad on 5 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1046 OF 2016
DATED: 5th MAY, 2026
Between:
Mudavat Srinu (Died per LR's)
.. Appellants-Applicants
Vs.
Union of India, rep. by its
General Manager, South Central
Railway, Secunderabad.
.. Respondent
This Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT:
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 23 of
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, assailing the judgment passed by
the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in OA II (U) No.167
of 2008 dated 21.09.2016.
2. Appellant No.1 is the applicant and respondent is the respondent
in OA II (U) No.167 of 2008.
3. During pendency of the Appeal, appellant No.1 expired and his
legal heirs are brought on record as appellant Nos.2 to 4.
2/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
4. Appellant No.1 has filed application under Section 16 of the
Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 r/w Sections 124-A and 125 of
Indian Railways Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs
(In words it is mentioned as Two Lakhs only) arising out of an accident
as untoward incident.
5. On 14.02.2007, appellant No.1-applicant No.1 went to
Hyderabad for purchasing marriage articles for his close relative, after
completion of his work, in return journey with a view to go to
Umdanagar, he went to Kachiguda Railway Station in the night on the
above said date, purchased a Passenger Train journey ticket from
Kachiguda to Umdanagar and boarded Local Train No.LF-11/FU6
Passenger in a General Compartment and there was heavy rush of
passengers, suddenly he slipped and fell down accidentally from the
running Train between NPA Shivarampalli and Umdanagar Railway
Station near Budvel Railway Station due to speed and jerks of the
running Train. As a result, his right hand was cut and separated above
the elbow joint, left hand got fractured, sustained severe head injury
and right leg was fractured at the knee joint. In the intervening night
of 14/15.02.2007, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and was
admitted as in-patient at about 1:15 A.M. through some Railway staff
and Railway Police with the help of some other public. He took
treatment till 22.03.2007. Appellant No.1-applicant No.1 was aged
about 24 years and he was working as an auto driver, claimed an
3/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
amount of Rs.4 Lakhs (In words it is Two Lakhs only) with interest
from the date of filing the petition.
6. Respondent has filed his written statement and contended that
appellant No.1 – applicant No.1 is not a bonafide passenger of Local
Train No.LF-11/FU-6 on 14.02.2007 since no journey ticket was found
with him at the time of the alleged accident and there is no report from
the Railway Guard of the said Local Train about the alleged accident or
any co-passenger reported/lodged a complaint in the next hault of the
train or any Alarm chain was pulled during that time. There are no
direct eye-witnesses to the incident. Due inquiry has been conducted
by DRM, Hyderabad Division under the provisions of Railway
Passengers (Manner of Investigation of Untoward Incident) Rules,
2003, and the Inquiry Report reveals that the appellant No.1-applicant
No.1 was found injured and he was in conscious state, during inquiry,
he himself stated that he is a lorry driver and after his duty he
purchased provisions at Katedan and as it was late in the night, he was
returning to his lorry to take rest and to go to his house in the early
hours. During that time he was crossing the track at L.C. Gate No.9,
met with an accident with some unknown train and sustained injuries,
he was shifted to Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad in 108 Ambulance and
he has not expressed any doubt in the accident. Appellant No.1-
applicant No.1 is put to strict proof that the alleged accident falls under
Section 123 (c) or Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989.
4/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
7. It is worth mentioning that the learned Tribunal has not framed
any issues basing on the pleadings nor framed any point for
consideration.
8. Appellant No.1 – applicant No.1 is examined as AW.1 and also
examined AW.2 – Dr. M.A.Wahed and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.
On behalf of respondent, RW.1 – A.Veeranna, SI, RPF; RW2 –
Md.Raheemuddin are examined and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.
The Tribunal has examined CW.1 – Zoravar Khan and got marked
Ex.C1 – Case Diary.
9. The learned Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence
adduced by the parties arrived at a conclusion that the case falls within
Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, that it is
a criminal act on the part of the injured to trespass the railway lines
and dismissed the O.A. which is impugned in the Appeal.
10.1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned
Tribunal erroneously appreciated the applicability of the provisions of
Section 124-A of the Railways Act and grossly erred in holding that
there is no record to show that the injured was travelling with a
journey ticket and that he was not a bonafide passenger. The
Tribunal erred in holding that it is a case of trespassing and is a
criminal act under the provisions of the Railway Act. No ticket was
found with the injured and the documents placed on record only
5/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
indicate that he was found in injured condition will not make him a
bonafide passenger to grant compensation.
10.2. The act is a beneficial piece of legislation. The Tribunal ought to
have adopted a liberal approach. In support of her contention, she
relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Union of India Vs. Rina Devi 1
(2) Kalandicharan Sahoo and Another Vs. General Manager South East
Central Railway 2, (3) Union of India Vs. P.Manjula and Others 3
(4) Veeranna Vs. Union of India 4, prayed to allow the Appeal.
11. Learned standing counsel for the respondent submits that the
learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts of the case in proper
perspective taking into consideration Ex.R1-Divisional Railway
Manager’s Report and Ex.C1-Case Diary which goes to show that the
injured is a lorry driver and in his statement he stated that he was
trespassing the track at LC Gate No.9, met with an accident with some
unknown train. In support of her contention she relied in the case of
Union of India Vs. Poonam and Others 5.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed written arguments
in support of her contention.
1
2018 3 ACJ 1441
2
2018 ACJ 1460
3
CMA No.785 of 2008 dated 22.12.2011 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad
4
CMA No.248 of 2014 dated 18.07.2025, High Court for the State of
Telangana
5
FAO 57 of 2021 and CM APPL.5340 of 2021 dated 04.01.2024 of the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi
6/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
13. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.
14. Now the points for consideration are :
1. Whether the applicant is a bonafide passenger of the
train in question?
2. Whether the applicant sustained injuries as a result of
untoward incident of accidental fall from the said
train?
3. Whether the judgment-order passed by the learned
Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so,
does it requires interference of this Court or not?
15. It is appropriate to refer Railway Passengers (Manner of
Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003, with regard to
Inquest report. Rules 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are important to adjudicate
the lis which reads as under:
“Rule 3: Report about untoward incident:
Any railway servant, including Guard and Driver of the train,
on coming to know of the occurrence of an untoward
incident, shall report the incident immediately to the nearest
Station Superintendent.
Rule 6: Duties of Station Superintendent:
The Station Superintendent, on receipt of an information
about the occurrence of untoward incident under rule 3,
shall:
(i) Make necessary entries to this effect in the station
diary;
(ii) Arrange for medical assistance to the injured
passengers;
7/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
(iii) Make out a brief report in respect of spot of the
untoward incident and forward copies thereof to the
Divisional Office, Zonal Railways, police and
[“Divisional Security Commissioner”] of the Force.
Rule 7: Conducting of investigation and submission of report by
the Force.-
(1) On receipt of information under rule 6, an officer of the
Force, shall carry out the investigation and shall, –
i. obtain copies of the inquest report, post mortem report and
Jama Talashi report from the police investigating the
inçident;
ii. obtain a copy of the report specified under clause (iii) of
rule 6;
iii. obtain information about the untoward incident in Form-2;
iv. record statement of additional witnesses, if so required.
v. collect any other evidence required by the circumstances of
the case;
(2) The Officer of the Force, [“shall complete the investigation
within sixty days and”] submit a report to the [“authority”]
specified under sub-rule (2) of rule 10.
Rule 9- The injured and the next of kin of the deceased
passenger may submit evidence and assist police and Force –
The injured and the next of kin of the deceased passenger may
submit all the relevant evidence before the police and assist
the police and the force to complete investigation.
Rule 10. Forwarding of investigation report by the police and
the Force:
8/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
(1) The police on completion of the investigation, shall
forward the report thereof to the Magistrate, as required under
the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
(2) The officer of the Force shall forward the report
prepared under sub rule (2) of rule 7 to the [“omitted”]
Divisional Security Commissioner of Force.
[“(3) The Divisional Security Commissioner shall submit the
report to Divisional Railway Manager within fifteen days of the
receipt of report of investigation from officer of the force”.]”
16. Ex.A1 is the Discharge Report of the appellant No.1 – applicant
No.1, Ex.A2 is the Physically Handicapped Certificate and Ex.A3 is the
Case Sheet of the appellant No.1 – applicant No.1 of Osmania General
Hospital. It is mentioned therein that “patient alleged to have met
with train accident on 15.02.2007 at 1.15 A.M. at Budvel Railway
Station”.
17. Ex.R2 is the copy of the Letter dated 25.11.2009 addressed by
Deputy Chief Commissioner Manager (Claims) & PO to the Senior
Divisional Security Commissioner, South Central Railway, Hyderabad
Division. The Tenor of the letter reads as under:
“The above application has been filed before RCT/SC
claiming compensation for INJURY of MUDAVAT SRINU due to
the alleged fall from Train No.UNK on 14/Feb/2007 at BUDVEL.
The case is coming up for filing Written Statement.
You are therefore, requested to send the Statutory Enquiry
Report as required under “Rules of Manner of Investigation
(Untoward Incidents) 2003 to be filed along with Written
Statement. Please see that non filing of the Statutory Report
9/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016may be fatal to the Railway and the case will be decided
against the Railway Administration”.
18. The Final report is filed by Railway Police Station Kachiguda in
FIR No.47 of 2007 on 11.07.2007 by the Sub-Inspector of Police which
forms part of Ex.R1. It is stated in the Final report filed under Section
173 Cr.P.C. that “on 06.03.2007, S.I. of Police has examined and
recorded the statement of the injured (Mudavat Srinu), in his
statement he stated that while he was trespassing the track at LC Gate
No.9, met with an accident with some unknown train and he was
shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad in 108 Ambulance and
was treated there at. It is a clear case of accident with train and there
is no need to investigate further as such he dropped further action and
issued final proceedings”.
19. Investigation Report dated 10.01.2010 goes to show that
Sri A.Veeranna, ASIPF/FM is the Investigating Officer with regard to
the untoward incident happened at track between LC No.9 and up
advance starter of Budvel Station. The statement of Raheemuddin is
recorded on 19.12.2009 and the statement of D.Nagesh is recorded on
29.12.2009. The finding in the report dated 10.01.2010 is that “In the
light of the above enquiries and on perusal of the Final Report of
GRP/KCG the injured has stated that while trespassing the track at LC
Gate No.9 he met with an accident with unknown train. He was shifted
to Osmania General Hospital by 108 Ambulance. It is opined that the
10/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
injured was a trespasser. Hence, the case may be dealt as per the law”
which forms part of Ex.R1.
20.1. The evidence of RW.1 – A Veeranna who is the Sub-Inspector,
RPF, CIB, Hyderabad deposed that on 19.12.2009, he caused enquiry
with Gateman, Raheemuddin who was on duty on 14/15.02.2007 at
L.C. Gate No.9/T between Budvel and Umdanagar, they saw one
person lying beside the track and informed the Station Master through
Gate phone about lying of a person, after some time 108 Ambulance
arrived at the spot and shifted the person. On 29.12.2009, he recorded
the statement of Station Master (Nagesh), Budvel. Nagesh stated that
on receipt of information from Gateman, he called 108 ambulance and
he obtained the Final Report and the FIR from GRP, Kachiguda which
stated that the injured while crossing the track at the Gate was hit by
an unknown train.
20.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is an Enquiry Officer
in the case, he did not examine any driver because the police report
stated unknown train and he got the claim application copy from the
DRM and started enquiry thereafter and he received a copy of the
letter from Commercial Department to the Senior Divisional Security
Commissioner asking for statutory enquiry, the copy of the letter is
filed in which the train number is given which is Ex.R2 and he was not
instructed to examine the Driver and Guard of Train No.LF-11/FU-6
11/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016Local Passenger and he has not examined the injured person and
family members and did not notice the exact location of the incident,
he did not ask the Hospital Authorities about the cause of the accident
and he is not aware of the train number. The Court has put a question
which reads as under:
Q: Why you have not examined the Hospital Authorities?
A: Because the GRP Kachiguda had already obtained
reports from the hospital.
21. Ex.C1 is the Case Diary which goes to show that one N.Aravind
Kumar, Station Manager-II, Kachiguda sent a message about a male
person aged about 31 years got injured beside the track i.e., in
between LC Gate No.9 and up advance starters Signal No.15 which is
reported by LC Gateman-Raheemuddin. The Report is dated
15.02.2007 at 03.00 hours. Basing on the said complaint, case in
Crime No.47 of 2007 is registered by PS Kachiguda on 15.02.2007 as
accidental fall. In Ex.C1 at page No.10 statement of LW.3 is recorded.
22. The evidence of RW.2 Md.Raheemuddin is to the extent of
passing on the information to the Station Master, Budvel on his Gate
phone about finding an injured man close enough to the Gate.
In his cross-examination, he stated that the man was lying 50 meters
from the Gate and he was close to the track.
23.1. The evidence of CW.1 – Zoravar Khan is that he is the
Investigating Officer in Crime No.47 of 2007 registered at Kachiguda
12/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
Railway Police Station. He filed the Final report on 11.07.2007 which is
an injured case and he recorded the statement of the applicant-
N.Arvind Kumar and Raheemuddin. Through his enquiry, it is
established that the injured passenger was trespassing the Railway line
at LC Gate No.9 near Budvel Railway Station between starter and
advanced starter signal and he came to the conclusion that the injured
was trespassing as per own his statement dated 06.03.2007. The
injured stated in his statement that unknown train hit him near LC
Gate No.9 and it is a case of hit by unknown train at LC Gate while
crossing the track and there was no ticket with the injured passenger.
23.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he has not taken the
signature and thumb impression of the injured while recording his
statement and as per the statement, the injured performed his duty
with lorry and subsequently was going home in the evening. He
started the investigation based on the memo of Station Master,
Kachiguda (Arvind Kumar) and the memo does not mention about
trespassing and the statement of the Gate man also does not reveal
about the trespassing, he has not examined the driver of the train and
he has not recorded the statements of the family members of the
injured. CW.1 denied the suggestion that the applicant has not given
his statement as recorded on 06.03.2007. He also denied the
suggestion that injured was travelling by LF-11/FU 6 Local Passenger
Train from Kachiguda to Umdanagar, slipped and fell down in between
13/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
Shivrampalli and Umdanagar Railway Station in the intervening night
of 14/15.02.2007.
24. The evidence of the applicant is the same with that of his claim
application. In his cross-examination he stated that on 14.02.2007 he
was travelling from Kachiguda to Umdanagar by purchasing a ticket
and he lost the same, he was in Hospital for about 2 to 3 months and
in Column No.16 of OAA he has mentioned a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs but
within brackets he has mentioned as Rs.2 Lakhs and he came to Koti
to purchase articles. He denied the suggestion that he did not have
any ticket and also denied the suggestion that while he was crossing
the LC Gate No.9 accident has taken place.
25. The evidence of AW.2-M.A.Wahed, Professor of Orthopaedics,
Government Medical College, Nizamabad is to the extent of the
applicant receiving the injuries and the final diagnostics is
(1) Traumatic amputation of right fore arm (2) Grade III comminuted
compound fracture of humeral condyl with dislocation of left elbow
(3) Radial nerve palsy of left upper limb and he was discharged on
22.03.2007 at the request of the patient and the MLC number is 4585
and the Case Sheet is Ex.A3. Nothing incriminating is elicited from his
cross-examination.
26.1. In Union of India Vs. Rina Devi‘s case1, the issues fell for
consideration before the Supreme Court are :
14/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
i. Whether the quantum of compensation should be as per the
prescribed rate of compensation as on the date of
application/incident or on the date of order awarding
compensation.
ii. Whether principle of strict liability applies;
iii. Whether presence of a body near the railway track is
enough to maintain a claim; and
iv. Rate of interest.
26.1(a). For the present Appeal Issue Nos.2 and 3 are relevant. In so
far as issue No.2 (Application of principle of strict liability-concept of
self inflicted injury) the Supreme Court observed at Para No.16.6
which reads as under:
“16.6. We are unable to uphold the above view as the
concept of ‘self-inflicted injury’ would require intention to
inflict such injury and not mere negligence of any particular
degree. Doing so would amount to invoking the principle of
contributory negligence which cannot be done in the case of
liability based on ‘no fault theory’. We may in this connection
refer to judgment of this court in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar, 2018 ACJ 1 (SC), laying down that plea
of negligence of the victim cannot be allowed in claim based
on ‘no fault theory’ under section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, we hold that death or injury
in the course of boarding or deboarding a train will be an
‘untoward incident’ entitling a victim to the compensation
and will not fall under the proviso to section 124-A merely
on the plea of negligence of the victim as a contributing
factor”.
15/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
26.1(b). In so far as issue No.3 (burden of proof when a body found
on railway premises – Definition of passenger), the Supreme Court
observed at Para No.17.4 which reads as under:
“17.4. We thus hold that mere presence of a body on the
railway premises will not be conclusive to hold that injured
or deceased was a bonafide passenger for which claim for
compensation could be maintained. However, mere absence
of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the
claim that he was a bonafide passenger. Initial burden will
be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an
affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on
the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts
shown or the attending circumstances. This will have to be
dealt with from case to case on the basis of facts found. The
legal position in this regard will stand explained accordingly”.
26.2. In Kalndhi Charan sahoo2 , the Supreme Court observed that :
“3. Though rule 7 of the Railway Passengers (Manner of
Investigation of Untoward Incidents) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Rules’) mandates the railway authorities to
investigate into such an untoward incident. Admittedly, no
such inquiry was conducted immediately after the incident. It
is only when the appellants filed the claim before the RCT on
27.2.2009 that investigation into the incident was ordered on
23.4.2009. According to the Railways, the said investigation
revealed that the deceased detrained from the moving train at
D Cabin without stoppage of the train and invited the
accident.
4. It is in these circumstances the appellants are before
us in these proceedings via Article 136 of the Constitution.
16/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that it is
not even necessary to go into the issue as to whether it was
the fault of the deceased or that he accidentally fell down.
Learned counsel for appellants has drawn our attention to the
provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989, which
warrants payment of compensation whenever untoward
incident occurs whether or not such an incident has occurred
by any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the
Railway administration. Going by the aforesaid provisions and
in the peculiar facts of this case, where no inquiry as
mandated by the Rules was conducted immediately after the
incident had occurred, we are of the view that the appellants
shall be entitled to compensation payable under Section 124-
A of the Railways Act, 1989. We are informed that, at the
material time, compensation payable under the said provision
was Rs. 4 lakhs”.
26.3. In P.Manjula3, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that
non-examination of the driver of the train is fatal to the case of
Railways.
26.4. In Veeranna4, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that the
Driver and the Guard of the train were not examined is a fatal to the
case of the respondent.
27. It is worth mentioning that inquiry into the matter commenced
after filing of the O.A. by the applicant. In the O.A. the applicant has
stated that he has purchased a ticket from Kachiguda to Umdanagar
and boarded local train No.LF-1/FU-6 Passenger Train in a General
17/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
Compartment. The inquiry started after the O.A. is filed but there is
no whisper with regard to local train number which is mentioned in the
original application.
28. Government of India, Ministry of Railways vide letter
No.2015/SCC (Spl.) 200/13 dated 30.12.2015 issued instructions to all
the Chief Security Commissioners, RPF and to all Zonal Railways that
under Rule 7 (2) of the Railway Passengers (Manner of Investigation of
Untoward Incident) Rules, 2003 as amended in the year 2007, the
Officers of the force shall complete the investigation within 60 days
and submit a report to the Divisional Security Commissioner of Force.
As per Ex.R2 inquiry commenced on 25.11.2009 whereas accident
occurred on the intervening night of 14/15.02.2007 which is against
the instructions issued by the Government of India dated 30.12.2015
and against Rule 7 (2) of the Rules.
29. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent strongly placed
reliance on Ex.R1 and Ex.C1 and contended that the case falls within
clause (c) of the proviso to Section 124-A of the Railways Act i.e., a
criminal act on the part of the injured to trespass the Railway Lines.
5
30.1 In Poonam , the High Court of Delhi observed that the deceased
was struck by a train while he was hit by a running train probably
while crossing the railway track.
18/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
30.2. The facts in the above judgment are completely different with
the facts on hand and the above said decision is not applicable to the
case of the respondent.
31. The report filed by the respondent is against Rule 7(2) of the
Rules and the applicant has discharged his burden by examining
himself by specifically stating that he lost his ticket after the accident
but the inquiry report is silent with regard to the train number
mentioned in the O.A. As stated supra, the learned Tribunal has also
not framed any issues nor framed any point for consideration for
deciding the lis. The applicant has discharged the initial burden casts
on him in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rina Devi1. The
burden is shifted on the respondent but they failed to discharge the
same. Moreover, Ex.R1-Inquiry Report is silent with regard to the
train No.LF-11/FU6 Passenger Train.
32. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the High
Court in Para Nos.26.1 to 26.4 are squarely applicable to the case on
hand and the learned Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim
application of the applicant.
33.1. It is worth mentioning that the appellant No.1-applicant No.1
has claimed Rs.4 Lakhs in the original application but in words it is
mentioned as Rs.2 Lakhs which is admitted by AW.1 in his cross-
examination. Hence, this Court is of the view that the claim made by
appellant No.1-applicant No.1 is for Rs.2 Lakhs only and the order
19/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
passed by the learned Tribunal in OA II (U) No.167 of 2008 dated
21.09.2016 is set aside in view of the reasons above.
33.2. As per the previous schedule compensation for amputation of
right hand below the shoulder is Rs.3,20,000/- with interest. Ministry
of Railways vide Gazette of India dated 22.12.2026 has amended the
Railway Accident and untoward incidents (Compensation) Rules and as
per part-III item No.2 the enhanced compensation is Rs.6,40,000/-
which shall came into force on 01.01.2017.
33.3. Accident took place on 14.02.2007. Appellants are entitled for
9% interest on Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of accident (14.02.2007)
till the date of pronouncement of Judgment (05.05.2026). Number of
days comes to 7020 days (19 years, 2 months, 21 days). The amount
works out to Rs.5,46,032/- (Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.3,46,032/-).
33.4. In Union of India Vs.Radha Yadav 6, the Supreme Court held that
if after applying reasonable rate of interest, the final figure was more
than Rs.8 Lakhs, the applications are entitled for higher of two figures.
33.5. Coming to the case on hand as per the amendment the
compensation for amputation of right hand below the shoulder is
Rs.6,40,000/-. The compensation arrived by this Court is
Rs.5,46,032/-. Hence the appellants are entitled for Rs.6,40,000/-
which is higher of the two figures.
6
AIR 2019 SC 1410
20/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
34. In the result, Appeal is allowed, judgment passed by the learned
Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad Bench in OA II (U) No.167 of
2008 dated 21.09.2016 is set aside. Appellants are entitled for
compensation of Rs.6,40,000/-. Respondent is hereby directed to
deposit the above said amount before the Tribunal within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such
deposit appellant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled as under:
(a) Appellant No.2 is entitled for Rs.3,84,000/-,
(b) Appellant No.3 is entitled for Rs.96,000/-,
(c) Appellant No.4 is entitled for Rs.1,60,000/-, being minor his
share amount shall be kept in F.D. till he attains majority.
(d) Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to withdraw their share
amount without furnishing security.
Interim orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous
application/s shall stand closed.
_________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
5th May, 2025.
PLV
21/20 BRMR,J
CRP_1046_2016
[ad_1]
Source link
