Jyotheendranath P vs Union Of India

The most important and expressive part of the human body is the face. It is the organ that facilitates interactions, speech, sight, and expression. A person's identity is largely shaped by the facial characteristics. The face is an organ of identification as well as biological significance. In addition to causing physical imperfections, a severe facial injury that results in substantial disfigurement may also inflict lifelong psychological suffering.

Whether extensive and severe burn injuries sustained on a major portion of the face of the appellant in an ‘untoward incident’, resulting in discolourations and scarring can be reckoned as ‘very severe facial disfigurement’ as mentioned in Part II of the Schedule under Rule 3 of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation Rules), 1990 is the issue arising for consideration in this appeal.

Claimant in O.A. No.5/2004 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, has approached this Court in this appeal filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, discontented with the compensation granted by the Tribunal.

The appellant suffered burn injuries in an untoward incident that occurred on 02.04.2023, while he was travelling from Angamaly to Kannur by Alleppey-Kannur Express Train No.16307. On that day, at about 21.20 hrs., while the train was between Elattur and Koilandy Railway Stations, a person sprinkled an inflammable liquid inside the coach and on some of the passengers in the D1 coach and set fire. He then stopped the train by pulling the chain, and fled. Five passengers of the D1 coach sustained minor to severe injuries. The appellant suffered serious burn injuries and was taken to hospital in a police vehicle immediately. He was treated as inpatient in Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode from 02.04.2023 to 15.05.2023. Again, he was admitted to the same hospital on 31.05.2023 and was discharged on 09.06.2023. Later, he was admitted in the Aster MIMS Hospital, Kannur, on 10.07.2023, and was treated as inpatient till 18.07.2023. Subsequently, he underwent treatment as inpatient in Aster MIMS Hospital, Kannur, from 31.07.2023 to 08.08.2023 and 05.09.2023 to 16.09.2023.

Seeking compensation for the injuries sustained, he approached the Tribunal. The Railway fairly acknowledged the incident before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal noted that there was no dispute with regarding the status of the appellant as a bona fide passenger and that he sustained injuries in an untoward incident. The Tribunal held that the appellant was a victim of a terrorist attack which falls within the purview of an untoward incident and therefore he was entitled for compensation. However, according to the Tribunal, none of the injuries sustained by the appellant fell within the categories of injuries mentioned in Schedule II to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The Tribunal therefore granted compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-, as provided under the second proviso to Rule 3(3) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri. Balagangadharan and the learned Central Government Counsel Shri. Mahadev for the respondent elaborately.

Respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this appeal. It is the contention of the respondent that the burn injuries sustained by the appellant are not scheduled injuries and therefore the Tribunal has rightly determined the compensation as Rs.1,60,000/-, following the second proviso to Rule 3(3). The learned Central Government Counsel submitted that burn injuries however severe are not included in the schedule and hence the maximum compensation payable as permitted by the Rules was Rs.1,60,000/-. Learned CGC further submitted that there is no illegality or impropriety in the judgment rendered by the Tribunal, since it has granted the maximum compensation payable under the Rules.

Conversely, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the evidence brought on record before the Tribunal would clearly show that the appellant had sustained 25% burn injuries of the second-degree. The learned counsel further pointed out that the appellant sustained severe burn injuries on his face. Photographs showing the condition of the appellant were produced before the Tribunal and were accepted on record. The Railway did not object to the production of the documents including the photographs. The learned counsel pointed out that severe second-degree burns were sustained on the right side of the face and the injuries resulted in severe permanent facial disfigurement. The learned counsel submitted that severe facial disfigurement is an injury included in the Schedule under Rule 3 of Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. The learned counsel made specific reference to Entry No.5 under Part II of the Schedule which fixes a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for very serious facial disfigurement. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the appellant was actually entitled to a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, as indisputably, he sustained severe facial disfigurement.

I have appreciated the contentions raised by both sides. Apart from hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Central Government Counsel, I have carefully perused the impugned judgment and the records.

Indian Railways handles huge volumes of commuters and cargo. It is one of the largest railway establishments in the world. It has ambitiously expanded the rail network to various parts of the geographically vast and heavily populated nation. Indian Railway is undeniably a lifeline of the nation. It is wholly owned and managed by the Union Government. The Government, obviously in tune with the ideals of a welfare state, incorporated Section 124A into the Railways Act, 1989, by way of an amendment in 1994, for providing compensation on account of untoward incidents. It imposed upon itself the responsibility to award compensation to bonafide passengers for untoward incidents that occur in the course of the working of the Railways, of course subject to the exceptions ingrained in Section 124A. The legislative intention is obviously to grant compensation in accordance with law, in all deserving cases.

In the instant case neither there is dispute with regard to the status of the appellant as a bona fide passenger nor that he sustained severe injuries in an untoward incident. The only dispute pertains to the compensation payable. As already noted, according to the Railway, the maximum compensation payable under the Rules has already been granted by the Tribunal and therefore no interference is warranted in this appeal. To the contrary, the appellant contends that the injuries sustained by the appellant led to very severe permanent facial disfigurement and hence compensation was payable as per Part II of the Schedule under Rule 3.

Part I of the Schedule contains a single entry, compensation for death. With effect from 01.01.2017 compensation for death is Rs.8,00,000/-. The same amount has been fixed as compensation for six categories of injuries included in Part II of the Schedule. Therefore, the rule making authority was perceptibly of the view that the six categories of injuries included in Part II are of serious nature and consequently would deserve to be compensated with the highest amount allowable under the Rules. Very severe facial disfigurement has also been significantly included in Part II. It is also to be noted that compensation for disfigurement of no other limb is provided in the Schedule. Therefore, it is apparent that the rule-making authority considered very severe facial disfigurement as a grave injury, that deserves to be compensated with the highest amount of compensation envisaged under the Rules.

The question is as to whether the injuries sustained by the appellant in the instant case could be reckoned as very severe facial disfigurement. The medical records produced would undoubtedly show that the appellant had sustained superficial to deep second-degree burn injuries on the entire right side of his face apart from severe burns on various other parts.

I have carefully examined the photographs of the appellant produced, which form part of the records of the Tribunal. They show that the appellant sustained severe and extensive burns on the right sides of his face. It appears that the right side of the face was affected completely. The Tribunal analysed the claim in a pedantic manner and fixed the compensation considering the injury as a non-scheduled one since burn injuries are not included in the Schedule. It overlooked the fact that the injuries resulted in very severe facial disfigurement. Without the help of even any medical opinion, it can be definitely assumed that the appellant sustained very severe facial disfigurement on account of the extensive second-degree burn injuries. That being the case, I am of the view that the appellant deserves to be compensated for very severe facial disfigurement even though burn injuries are not included in the Schedule to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990. Hence the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Compensation granted by the Tribunal shall stand re-fixed at Rs.8,00,000/-. Appellant shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% from the date of accident. Respondent shall deposit the entire amount as per this judgment before the Tribunal within a period of two months. If the amount as awarded by the Tribunal has already been deposited or paid to the appellant, Railway shall deposit the remaining amount.

Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF CLAIM PETITION IN OA NO. 5/2024 BEFORE THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 10.01.2024

Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2024

Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2024 OF THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. NO. 5/2024 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY

Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE DOCUMENTS DATED 03.04.2024