‘Discriminatory’: Despite negligence claim, CAT Patna orders railways to ensure payout to trackman who lost arm in 2017

The tribunal further described it as an “unfortunate aspect” that although the petitioner met with an accident in 2017, the authority concerned did not take timely steps to determine and grant compensation in accordance with the statutory rules.

Justice Narendra Kumar Johari issued the order on February 26.

‘Major, mature enough to be careful’

• The petitioner must have been careful for his personal safety, as it is a human tendency, the tribunal noted.
• The petitioner, in the course of performance of his duty, sustained severe injury, including a “traumatic amputation at the left mid-arm” level in 2017.
• It was placed on record that the petitioner was a well-known and experienced person regarding the movement as well as application of jerk at the time of starting the train.
• It was also noted that he was sufficiently mature and major at the time of the accident.
• In the entire record placed before the tribunal, there was no such certificate of the medical board concerned which could show the nature and percentage of the petitioner’s disability as well as loss of his earning capacity.
• It is confirmed by the railway authorities that at the time of the accident, the petitioner was on his railway duty and was boarded in the train.
• In the absence of any evidence placed on record, it cannot be inferred that either petitioner was himself responsible for the said accident or that there was any contributory negligence.

• The relevant rules concerning the petitioner’s case, who has been retained in service for his disability, suggest that he should be paid compensation in a lump sum, and the disability pension is admissible to him.
• The relevant rules for the determination of compensation require the percentage of disability to be fixed by the competent medical authority.
• The petitioner is entitled to get compensation from his employer for the accident/trauma/treatment and for loss of earning capacity.
• The railway is directed to medically examine the petitioner with regard to the nature and extent of disability as well as loss of earning capacity.
• The examination should be done within 30 days of the date of this order.
• The competent authority is further directed that after obtaining the disability/loss of earning certificate from the medical board concerned, they should calculate the amount of compensation in accordance with the relevant rules in this regard.
• The competent authority should pay the said calculated amount of compensation to the petitioner within 90 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in their office.

‘A trackman, accident, amputation’

• The petitioner, Yadav, is an employee of the railway and was working as a trackman at Thakurganj Railway Station.
• While unloading ballast from the train, he sustained severe injury as a traumatic amputation at the left mid-arm level on January 1, 2017.
• The petitioner was immediately referred to a hospital and was thereafter referred to another orthopaedic hospital of Eastern Railway, Kolkata, on January 20, 2017, where he was provided an artificial limb.
• A medical examination of the petitioner was held on January 17, 2018, by the standing divisional medical committee, which recommended that he was not fit for employment in certain roles.
• The recommendation was also duly accepted by the competent authority on January 24, 2018, which recommended the petitioner’s name for alternative employment on medical grounds.
• The petitioner was further sent for medical examination and was declared medically unfit for his earlier employment requirement and was given a certificate for the medical unfit category with a loss of earning capacity equivalent to 80%.
• In March 2021, he made a representation before the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) of the relevant authority requesting the grant of compensatory relief for the loss of earning capacity, but he could not receive a response from the same.

‘Discriminatory’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Shri Mahendra Prasad Bhartee argued that the petitioner has been facing utter discrimination for his disabilities in society.
• Bhartee mentioned that there is inherent harm to his dignity and personal autonomy as a loss or diminution of his capacity, and it includes the inability to work and participate in other normal works of daily chores.
• It was further submitted that this is all the result of the accident which happened in the normal course of employment.
• It was claimed that he is entitled to compensation at the earliest, as he should get the motivation that his rights are well recognised and validly accepted in the tribunal.
• It was further mentioned that the petitioner received a letter for his re-joining on a decategorised post and has been absorbed in the medical department.
• He emphasised that the re-joining on a decategorised post is itself a discriminatory behaviour of the railways, as the accident is not personal in nature but an accident caused during the course of discharging his duties.
• Stating all these points, the petitioner claimed that he should not be decategorised.

‘Yadav’s own fault’

• On the contrary, additional standing counsel A K Mantu submitted that when the unloading of ballast was completed, all the staff engaged in the work were advised to board the train by the in-charge, who was in the engine of the train.
• It was further claimed that after boarding all the staff, it was advised by the in-charge to the pilot of the train to start the train. As the train started, a jerk was felt, and subsequently, a noise of shouting of staff was heard, and the pilot immediately stopped the train.
• It was further mentioned that the pilot and the in-charge ran towards the source of the sound, where they found that the petitioner was entangled with the wheel of one of the wagons, and his left hand was cut off from the elbow.
• It has also been mentioned that the petitioner was not attentive regarding their personal safety at the workplace.
• It was also submitted that the petitioner, including the other staff who were given the work of unloading ballast, had been advised to board the train.

• They were well aware that as the train started, they would come across a jerk, and despite the same, the petitioner was careless.
• Mantu submitted that if he had taken care, then the accident would not have happened, and therefore, he got injured due to his own fault and is not entitled to any compensation.
• It was also emphasised that since the employee is getting a monthly salary with all its benefits after an accident, at par with regular employees, the compensation for disability pension is not admissible.
• Mantu mentioned that the petitioner has been declared medically fit for another suitable alternative job after screening by the committee concerned, and accordingly, he has been offered a suitable job as per his medical fitness.
• The joint accident inquiry committee conducted a fact-finding enquiry, and it was found that the accident occurred due to his own fault as he was not attentive regarding his personal safety at the work spot.