… … … Complainant
Versus
1. The Station Master, Mankatha Railway Station, District Lakhisarai Pin-811311, Bihar.
2. The Station Master, Chandigarh Railway Station, District Chandigarh Pin-160001.
… … … Opposite Parties
BEFORE: MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDENT
MR.BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA, MEMBER
Argued by: Complainant in person.
Sh.Vikas Kashyap, Counsel for OPs.
ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT
1] The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he boarded the train No.03213 for Mankatha to Patna on 06.11.2021, after purchasing a ticket by paying Rs.30/-. The train was crowded. Before reaching the station, due to heavy rush in the train, someone pushed the complainant and due to this, he fell down from the train near Dumri Station. The complainant was unconscious, thus, the railway employee took him to the nearest hospital where he was treated. It is pleaded by complainant that after 1 or 2 days, his health started deteriorating and he continued to treat and this treatment has cost to him Rs.19,99,998/-. It is pleaded that due to gross negligence on the part of the Railway, he met with such life threatening serious incident. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking refund of ticket amount alongwith interest and compensation of Rs.98 Lakh for financial and mental agony.
2] OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint and filed their written version, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, complaint is abuse of process of law and also that the claim of the claimant falls under the definition of untoward incident provided under Section 123(c)(2) of The Railways Act, 1989. On merits, it is stated that in each and every station, a station diary is available for the purpose of recording activities during the course of operation of a train. No any such incident either noticed by the Station Master, Mankatha, Dumri or Barahiya (next station of Dumri) or informed by any passenger/pubic/loco pilot/train manager etc. Hence, it is denied that any such incident took place on 06.11.2021 as alleged by the complainant. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3] OP No.2 also contested the consumer complaint and filed their written version, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties and also that complainant is manipulating the facts. On merits, the contents of the complaint have been denied and facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4] Complainant did not file replication to the written versions filed by OPs.
5] Parties led evidence by way of affidavit in support of their contention.
6] We have heard the complainant & the learned counsel for OPs and have gone through entire documents on record.
7] It is observed in the present complaint that complainant himself pleaded that someone pushed him due to heavy rush in the train and he fell down from the train near Dumri station and became unconscious. Thereafter, the railway employee took him to the near hospital where he was treated. So the complainant himself stated that someone from public pushed him out of the train. Thus, meaning thereby, that there is no deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice by the OPs as some passenger had pushed the complainant out of train. Moreover, the complainant himself mentioned in his complaint that one of the employee of the railway took him to the nearest hospital where he was treated. So as per complainant’s own averments, it is clear that employee of the railway help the complainant and took him to the nearby hospital where he was treated. In such like situation, OPs could not be held liable for deficiency in service. Moreover, complainant has not placed on record any of the document i.e. invoice of railway ticket, treatment from the hospital, expenses incurred upon the alleged treatment etc. In the absence of any documentary proof, mere statement of the complainant that he had spent Rs.19,99,998/- on his treatment could not be proved on record.
8] Moreover, OP No.1 in their written version taken objection that claim of the complainant falls under the definition of “untoward incident” provided under Section 123(c)(2) of The Railways Act, 1989, which is reproduced as under:-
123. Definitions.-
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) “untoward incident” means-
(1) (i) xxx
(ii) xxx
(iii) xxx
(2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers.
Further, Section 15 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, provided as under:-
Section 15. Bar of jurisdiction.-
On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in [sub-sections (1), (1A) and (1B)] of section 13”
9] In view of this, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file fresh with the concerned Railway Claims Tribunal, as per law.
10] The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per Rules under The Consumer Protection Rules, 2020. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced
28.11.2024
Sd/-
(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA)
MEMBER
as
