Skip to content


Kailash Shukla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2(1985)ACC581
AppellantKailash Shukla
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi)
Cases ReferredCase Union of India v. Adhoc Claims Commissioner
Excerpt:
- - it was clearly stated in the first information report that some jewellery was lost and details of which would be furnished in due course. he has stated that no guidelines were provided in the said decision, fn the absence of any guiding principles, it is not safe to rely on the said authority and award the mxaimum compensation of rs......and other articles was lost.2. considering the evidence available on record, the commissioner awarded compensation to the extent of rs. 4,500/- for the loss of property and compensation of rs. 5,500/- for the pain and suffering caused to the claiman from the injuries that she sustained. aggrieved, the claimant has filed th instant appeal.3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. the contention of learned counsel for the claimant is that the commissioner has not awarded any compensation for the loss of jewellery and the compensation awarded for the injuries is wholly inadequite. a careful perusal of the order of the commissioner shows that the first information report of the said incident was lodged by the claimant on 13-10-1977. that is after three days of the.....
Judgment:

Om Prakash, J.

1. This is the first appeal from order dated 10-1-1979 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc Claims Commissioner, Allahabad (herein after referred to as, the Commissioner) awarding compensation aggregating to Rs. 10,000/- for loss of property and for pain and suffering caused to the claimant from the accident with the train, in which she travelled, had met on 10-10-1977. The claimant sustained two fractures besides other minor injuries and her V.I.P. Suit-Case containing jewellery and other articles was lost.

2. Considering the evidence available on record, the Commissioner awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 4,500/- for the loss of property and Compensation of Rs. 5,500/- for the pain and suffering caused to the claiman from the injuries that she sustained. Aggrieved, the claimant has filed th instant appeal.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length. The contention of learned Counsel for the claimant is that the commissioner has not awarded any compensation for the loss of jewellery and the compensation awarded for the injuries is wholly inadequite. A careful perusal of the order of the Commissioner shows that the first information report of the said incident was lodged by the claimant on 13-10-1977. that is after three days of the train accident. The claim petition was submitted on 2-1-1978 and the details of jewellery were furnished on 11-1-1978. The details of the jewellery having not been furnished either in the first information report or in the claim petition, the Commissioner took the view that the explanation given for not having furnish ad the list of the jewellery prior to 11-1-1978 could not be believed. I do not agree with the approach of the Commissioner. No conflicting stand was taken in the first information repart. It was clearly stated in the first information report that some jewellery was lost and details of which would be furnished in due course. Thereafter, the claim petition was filed and the details were furnished on 11-1-1978. The explanation oa behalf of the claimant is that the treatment was the paramount conideration after the accident and therefore, not much attention was paid to furnish the details of the jewellery, the loss of which was alleged in the first information report. Thus the claimant fully explained as to why the details of the Jewellery were furnished at late as 11-1-1978. The claimant being a Hindu lady, it can be ordinarily presumed that she must be having some jewellery, which she might have lost when the accident occurred.

4. For the injuries, the Commissioner awarded Compensation aggregating to Rs. 5,500/-. learned Counsel for the appellant adverted my attention to Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules, 1950 (Briefly, the Rules, 1950) Rule 6, Sub-rule (3) in part 111 of the Rules 1950 came up for interpretation before the Calcutta High Court in the Case of Union of India v. Adhoc Claims Commissioner and Ors. A.I.R. 1977 Calcutta 39 and then it was held that the word 'any' occurring in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules 1950 could not be read as 'all' and therefore, for each injury the Compensation to the maximum limit of Rs. 10,000/- could be awarded. Then it was argued that the same High Court took the same view again and a warded Rs. 10,000/- for such type of injury and therefore, the Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for each injury should be awarded to the claimant by the Commissioner. I have called upon learned Counsel for the appellant to point out as to what guidelines have been provided by the Calcutta High Court in the Case Union of India v. Adhoc Claims Commissioner (Supra) to award that maximum amount of Compensation. He has stated that no guidelines were provided in the said decision, fn the absence of any guiding principles, it is not safe to rely on the said authority and award the mxaimum Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for each injury. However, looking to the materials available on record, I feel that the Compensation aggregating to Rs. , 5,500/- for the two fractures resulting into pain and suffering to the Claimant was inadequate.

5. Considering the loss of jewellery, the nature of injury resulting into pain and suffering and the loss of other properly, I feel that total Compensation aggregating to Rs. 15,000/- should have been awarded instead of Rs. 10,000/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The compen sation is enhanced by Rs. 5000/- only, which shall be paid to the Claimant within a month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order to the Railway Administration. The parties will bear their own Costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //