Karnataka High CourtCivil LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Train-Fall Amputee Gets No Increase In ₹2.4 Lakh Award As Karnataka HC Cites No Medical Bills For Further Expenses

SRI. SRIKANTv.THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY

Train-Fall Amputee Gets No Increase In ₹2.4 Lakh Award As Karnataka HC Cites No Medical Bills For Further Expenses. SRI. SRIKANT vs THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal’s order called for interference.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the appellant, finding no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s award or grant further compensation for non-scheduled injuries.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed.

01Facts

On 23 November 2013, the appellant claimed that, while travelling from Hospet to Koppal as a bona fide passenger with a valid ticket, he fell from an overcrowded train near Munirabad Railway Station and sustained injuries, including an amputation of his right lower leg below the knee.

¶ 2, 6

The Railway Claims Tribunal awarded him ₹2,40,000: ₹2,00,000 for the scheduled amputation injury and ₹40,000 for non-scheduled injuries. He appealed, seeking enhancement for the non-scheduled injuries.

¶ 4, 7 · ¶ 1, 3

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal’s order called for interference.

¶ 5

ii.Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation for non-scheduled injuries.

¶ 5

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

p. 1

The judgment also referred to the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, and the applicable Schedule of Injuries as the basis for assessing compensation for scheduled injuries.

¶ 4.1

The Court cited no precedents and stated no separate legal test for compensation for non-scheduled injuries.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Section 23

04Reasoning

The Court treated the journey, valid ticket, and injuries as undisputed; the appeal concerned only additional compensation for non-scheduled injuries.

¶ 6

The appellant had produced no medical bills or other records establishing treatment expenses or the amount claimed. The Tribunal had nevertheless awarded ₹40,000 for expenses relating to the non-scheduled injuries, in addition to the scheduled-injury award. Finding no cogent ground to disturb that assessment, the Court declined to enhance compensation.

¶ 7–8

05Holding

The Court answered the issues against the appellant, finding no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s award or grant further compensation for non-scheduled injuries.

¶ 8–9

The appeal was dismissed.

¶ 9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI. SRIKANTvsTHE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY

Karnataka High Court · October 09, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment