Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD FRIDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2013 4TH SRAVANA, 1935 M. F. A. No. 71 of 2005 --------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OA. 260/2002 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 09 11-2004) ......................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------------ C.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O.P.CHINNARAJ, EACHAMPATTI P.O. NALLAMPALLI (VIA), DHARMAPURI TK & DISTRICT.,TAMIL NADU 63 807. BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI -3. BY ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------- M. F. A. NO. 71 OF 200.E ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th July, 2013 JUDGMENT A Hariprasad, J.
Appellant filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation for injury sustained in a train accident while he was travelling in Mangalore - Chennai Mail on 22.6.2001. He was travelling from Kozhikode to Salem with a II class ticket. The train derailed and plunged into Kadalundi river, causing extensive injuries to him. He claimed a compensation of .3 Lakhs.
2. The respondent filed a reply statement denying the gravity and extent of the injuries suffered by the appellant and claiming that he was not entitled to any compensation. The tribunal framed the following Issues: "1. To what compensation the applicant is entitled from the respondent for his sustaining MFA.NO.71/05E 2 injuries in the Kadalundi train accident happened at Kadalundi on 22.6.2001 involving Mangalore- Chennai Mail train No.6602 2. Reliefs and costs " Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the appellant and he testified as PW1.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.
4. The appellant alleged that he sustained fracture on the left shoulder and loss of hearing capacity to an extent of 30% in the accident. In order to establish his claim, learned counsel for the appellant relied on Ext.A2 Audiogram report and other medical records produced in the case.
5. We have carefully gone through the medical records. It is not evident from the records that the appellant has sustained 30% hearing loss in the accident. Oral evidence adduced by the appellant also does not show that he is entitled to get enhanced MFA.NO.71/05E 3 compensation than that is already awarded by the tribunal. The tribunal after considering the entire matters and after appreciating the evidence, granted .50,000/= as compensation. We do not find any reason for enhancing the compensation. Therefore, the Appeal is dismissed. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH JUDGE Sd/= A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE kbk. //True Copy//