JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

      Late Shri Burle Jagan Mohana Rao, husband of the complainant, was travelling from Secunderabad to Vijayawada at Golconda Express on a valid ticked purchased by him.  He got down from the train at about 8 pm.  He died at one of the platforms of Vijayawada railway station and his dead body was noticed at about 00:30 hours.  The incident was reported to the Deputy Station Superintendent and an ambulance was called.  He was declared dead.  The case of the complainant/respondent is that no medical aid was provided to him at any point of time till he died.  She therefore, approached the concerned District Forum seeking compensation.  The complaint was resisted by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the deceased having died a natural death, having suffered a heart attack, they cannot be said to be negligent in the matter and were not responsible for his death.

2.   The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the respondent/complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 25.04.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay the compensation quantified at Rs.10 lacs alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order.  Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 

3.      The only question involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioners can be said to be negligent in rendering services to the deceased who was a lawful passenger, he having purchased a valid ticket and having not left the platform where he had got down from the train.  It can hardly be disputed that since he was within the railway premises at the time he died, he was a consumer of the petitioners in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.  A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of this Commission in Vinaya Vilas Sawant Vs. Union of India 2008 (1) CPJ 13. 

4.      It is not in dispute that the train on which the deceased was travelling had reached Vijayawada at about 8 pm.  This is not the case of the petitioners anywhere in the reply to the consumer complaint that the train had got delayed and therefore, had reached late.  Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the deceased had got down from the train at Vijayawada railway station at about 8 pm. 

5.    It is not in dispute that the deceased had died at a platform of Vijayawada railway station.  The time of his death is not known since no post mortem on his dead body was performed, probably on account of reluctance of the family to subject the body to post mortem on being informed that the deceased had died due to a heart attack.  In the ordinary course of events, a person would leave the railway station within about 10-15 minutes of his getting down from the train.  There would be no reason for the passenger to continue to stay on the platform unless he has to board some other train from the same platform.  This is not the case of the petitioners that the deceased had to board another train from Vijayawada.  The complainant who is present in the court submits that Vijayawada was the last railway station for reaching the home of the deceased.  Therefore, it cannot be said that he was staying on the platform, in order to board some other train.  In these circumstances, it would not be unjustified to infer that the deceased had suffered a heart attack within say 15 to 10 minutes of his getting down from Vijayawada railway station.  This would mean that he suffered a heart attack at about 8:15 pm or so.  It is an admitted position that no railway employee noticed the deceased or his dead body at any time prior to 12:30 am. This would mean that no one cared to attend to the deceased if he was alive or to attend to his body in case he had died, for more than 4 hours.  Since the exact time of death of the deceased is not known, it cannot be found out as to for how much time he survived after suffering a heart attack.  Though it is possible that the heart attack was so severe that he died instantly and therefore, any medical aid would have been of no help to him, it is also equally possible that he did not die instantly and had immediate medical aid been provided, his life could be saved.  It is rather unfortunate that no railway employee noticed the deceased or his dead body for almost 4 hours.  Since there is a possibility of a person suffering a heart attack surviving in case immediate medical aid is provided to him, the petitioners in my opinion were negligent in rendering services to the deceased since no medical aid was provided to him at the railway platform, soon after he had suffered a heart attack at about 8:15 pm or so.  Therefore, the direction for payment of compensation to the complainant on account of the aforesaid negligence of the railway employees cannot be faulted with.

6.      As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order would show that the said quantum was not questioned by the petitioners before the State Commission.  Even otherwise, a compensation of Rs.10 lacs for the loss of a life cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable so as to warrant interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  However, as far as direction for payment of interest is concerned, the same, in my opinion, would be unnecessary if the compensation is paid by the petitioners in a time bound manner.  The revision petition is therefore, disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to pay the compensation of Rs.10 lacs to the complainant within 12 weeks from today failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum with effect from twelve weeks from the date of this order.