Union of India (UOI) and Another vs Badruddin and Another

D.S. Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Lalji Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Sri A. K. Shukla, learned standing counsel representing the Respondent No. 2. Despite due service of the notice, nobody appears for the Respondent No. 1.

By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek to challenge the legality of the order and judgment dated 29th November, 1980 passed by the Respondent No. 2.

Sri Badruddin, the Respondent No. 1, sustained certain physical Injuries while travelling in 286 Dn. passenger train between Khurhat Railway Station and Paligarh Halt. He preferred a claim for compensation before the Respondent No. 2.

On a finding that the Respondent No. 1 had become totally incapable of moving around, the Respondent No. 2 allowed the claim of the Respondent No. 1 and awarded him a compensation of Rs. 50,000.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contends that the Respondent No. 2 committed a manifest error of law in awarding the maximum compensation of Rs. 50,000 on the finding of total disability. He submits that there is no evidence on record to sustain the finding of total disability. Indeed, according to him the finding of total disability arrived at by the Respondent No. 2 runs counter to the evidence on record in the shape of the report of the Medical Board, a copy whereof is before this Court as Annexure B to the writ petition.

The court has looked and scrutinized the impugned order and judgment and also the report of the Medical Board, referred to above, and is of the firm opinion that the finding of the Respondent No. 2 with regard to the total disability of the Respondent No. 1 arising out of the injury sustained by him cannot be upheld. In its report, the Medical Board has clearly come to the conclusion that no functional abnormalcy was noticed on account of the injury sustained by the Respondent No. 1. On the other hand, the Medical Board was of the opinion that whatsoever deformities figured in the limbs of the Respondent No. 1 could be corrected by giving proper treatment. This report of the Medical Board could not be brushed aside by the Respondent No. 2 lightly. Overriding the report of the Medical Board, the Respondent No. 2 has relied upon his visual observation. The opinion formed on the basis of visual observation by the Respondent No. 2 could not, in the opinion of the court, outweigh the expert opinion of the Medical Board. Therefore, the very basis of awarding maximum compensation to the Respondent No. 1 disappears.

There is no denial of the fact that the Respondent No. 1 did sustain some non-scheduled injuries for which the prescribed maximum compensation was Rs. 10,000, at the relevant time. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners very fairly concedes that the Respondent No. 1 may be awarded the maximum compensation for the non-scheduled injuries sustained by him.

In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The amount of compensation payable to the Respondent No. 1 shall be Rs. 10,000 instead of Rs. 50,000. To that extent, the impugned order and judgment dated 29th November, 1980 shall stand modified. There is no order as to costs.