The brief facts of the case, is that, the son of the complaints Abhimanyu Kumar Singh was an employee of private company at Guwahati, Assam and he used to reside at Dimapur, Assam for his job. On 12/12/2017 the son of the complainants were travelling from Dimapur to Kuil (Bihar) with his uncle (Rabi Kumar) by Brahmaputra Mail, Train No. 14055, Berth No. 40 and Coach No. S-4 in sleeper class but his uncle (Rabi Kumar) was travelling as a waiting list passenger. That on the date at about 4:00 P.M. the son of the complainants started feeling pain in his chest and the on duty T.T.E was informed about the pain of the complainants son but no doctor was called for by the on duty T.T.E. The uncle of the Abhimanyu Kumar Singh was scared on seeing the condition of his nephew since he was screaming for intolerable pain in his chest. The on duty T.T.E was repeatedly requested by the uncle of Abhimunya Kumar Singh to do the needful so that an arrangement be made for the treatment by calling a doctor in the next nearest station but the on duty T.T.E. told that he informed the matter to the guard of the train who would contact with the nearest station master for medical assistance. After passing several stations no arrangement was done for medical treatment of Abhimanyu Kumar Singh. As a result the condition of the complainants son was going deteriorated and consequently Abhimanyu Kumar Singh expired inside the coach at about 7:30 P.M. when the train reached at New Alipurduar Railway Station. Therafter the dead body of Abhimanyu Kumar Singh was taken up from train by GRPS, Alipurduar Railway Station and UD Case being No. 49 of 17 dated - 12/12/2017 was started. Dead body was sent for post mortem examination to the district hospital, Alipurduar where Post Mortem was done on 13/12/2017. If the T.T.E called the doctor in time there was a chance of recovery of Abhimunya Kumar Singh but on duty T.T.E did not perform his duty. The son of the complainant was suffering from tuberculosis although the post mortem doctor opined that the death was due to tuberculosis. There is a gross negligent from the part of the O.Ps for not providing to assistance to the deceased in time and for that reason he has filed this case and prayed for compensation of Rs. 19,50,000/- for his son and Rs. 50,000/- as a litigation cost.
The O.Ps appeared before this Commission and filed their written version and denying all the material allegations made by the complainant. The O.P admitted that the deceased Abhimunya Kumar Singh the passenger who traveling on 12/12/2017 and Train No. 14055, Brahmaputra Mail. A specific case of the O.Ps are that the on duty T.T.E was performing his duty of the said train and during inspection he noticed that Rabi Kumar a co-passenger who has been found wiping while he was asked the reason he stated that the breathing problem of one passenger Abhimunya Kumar Singh. Observing the gravity of the situation the on duty ticket checking staff immediately informed the commercial control of N.F. Railway, Alipurduar at 18:18 hours for assistance of doctor but the on duty staff did not informed the matter to the guard of the train. It is further case of the O.Ps are that according to the information of the on duty checking staff the doctor intimated by the commercial control by the Alipurduar Division at 18:35 hours on 12/12/2017, Train No. 14055 arrive at New Alipurduar Station at 19:30 hours and the doctor immediately attended the said patient Abhimunya Kumar Singh for his treatment who found death in the Railway coach and the doctor declared him death at 19:35 hours. The dead body under the GRP staff and the post mortem was held thereafter. The O.Ps further stated that neither the said deceased before this death nor the co-passenger Rabi Kumar reported on duty checking staff regarding sickness of the said deceased at 4 p.m. The on duty staff detected the said breath problem faced by the passenger at 18:18 hours and immediately initiated to the doctor for assistance. There is no negligent from the part of the O.Ps. The O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case.
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully and also perused the documents which are lying on record.
In this contest, the following issues are necessarily come up for the proper adjudication of this case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
- Has this Commission jurisdiction to try the instant case?
- Is there any negligent or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Considering the nature and character of the case all points are interlinked to each other as such all such points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
Point Nos. 1 and 2:- Further it is seen from this case record as well as the evidence the son of the complainants were a valid passenger who traveling the train with a valid ticket but he died during the travelling time. Deceased was the consumer according to the Provision of C.P Act, 2019 and after his death his parents filed this case and the case is filed within territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission as because the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this case as per Section 34(d) of the C.P. Act, 2019.
Point Nos. 3 & 4:- In this case the allegation is that while the son of the complainants were travelling in the Train No. 14055 from Dimapur to Kuil (Bihar) with a valid ticket he was suffering from chest pain and breathing problem was started at about 4 p.m. and the uncle(Rabi Kumar) of the deceased Abhimunya was also co-passenger and he informed the matter on the on duty T.T.E for medical assistance but on duty T.T.E did not perform his duty as a result the said Abhimunya Kumar Singh died inside the railway coach and there was a deficiency in service due to laches from the part of the O.Ps.
In this case one of the complainants that is Shyam Prasad Singh being the father of the deceased Abhimunya Kumar Singh filed his evidence-on-affidavit to prove the case but no documents has been filed except the Railway ticket which is marked Annexure – B, the Aadhaar Card of deceased Abhimunya Kumar Singh which is marked Annexure – A, a ticket of Rabi Kumar which is marked Annexure – C, FIR which is marked Annexure – D, the death report which is marked Annexure – E, Post Mortem Report which is marked Annexure - F and death certificate which is marked Annexure - G.
The O.Ps has denied that at 4 p.m. the on duty T.T.E was informed by the co-passenger Rabi Kumar. There is no dispute that Abhimunya Kumar Singh was a passenger with a valid ticket in Train No.14055 and Rabi Kumar was traveling in that said train as a waiting list passenger. The question is whether the on duty T.T.E was informed by Rabi Kumar at 4 p.m. or not ? the Rabi Kumar did not turn up to adduce evidence in this regard. Rabi Kumar being co-passenger of the deceased is the only eye witness of the entire occurrence. The complainants are not travelling in the said train. They heard the incident from Rabi Kumar. But there is no such explanation as to why Rabi Kumar did not adduce evidence or did not come forward to state that he narrated the incident to the complainants. So the evidence as adduce by the complainant nothing but a hearsay evidence as Rabi Kumar did not conform the same. So whether Rabi Kumar requested the on duty T.T.E at 4 p.m. or whether on duty T.T.E did not perform his duty in time as not been proved by the complainants. On the other hand the O.Ps have file some documents from which it appears from Annexure - A that the on duty T.T.E inform the Commercial Department, N.F. Railway, Alipurduar at 17:00 hours regarding the illness of the passenger Abhimunya Kumar Singh and Annexure - A1 reveals that doctor was informed to attend the patient at New Alipurduar Station. It also appears that at 9:28 hours on 12/12/2017 the said train was arrived at New Alipurduar Station and the doctor attended the patient and found death. Thereafter, UD case was started (Annexure - C is the documents) and doctor issued the death certificate then post mortem was held Annexure - F from which it reveals that the reason of the death due to the effect of plural and pericardial effusion with asidis due to tuberculosis as described above and natural deceased caused. So the O.Ps have filed the documents in support of the contention that the on duty T.T.E informed the matter after knowing the fact regarding the deceased of the deceased to the concern authority and doctor attended but the patient was died and post mortem report says it is a natural death. Post Mortem Report is disputed or not can not be adjudicated here. The documentary evidence is more powerful then the oral evidence although the eye witness Rabi Kumar has not been examined in this case to prove the contention of the complainants. That a part in the Indian Railway Medical Manual Rule 628 says “Passengers who take ill while travelling (1) While it is not incumbent on the Railways to provide medical relief to passengers who take ill, such assistance is invariably rendered in practice as a matter of courtesy to a customer”. So the first point is that the contention of the complainants regarding intimation of the on duty T.T.E has not been proved by the complainant. On the other hand O.Ps have proved their contention by their documents that on duty T.T.E noticed the illness of the patient at 5 p.m. then and there he informed the matter to the Railway Authority, Railway Authority intimated the doctor to attend the patient and accordingly the doctor attended the patient at New Alipurduar Station inside the train compartment and found the passenger was death. So there is no laches from the part of the Railway Department regarding intimation for medical assistance and attending the doctor inside the train compartment inspite of that the passenger died as the doctor opined that it was natural death due to tuberculosis. That a part there is no binding rules upon the railway to provide the doctor during travelling and the ticket fair does not include the cost of medical assistance during travel. According to railway medical manual, Railway Authority has rendered medical help to the passenger who are travelling in the train only in the ground of the courtesy. So in that case nobody can ask the Railway Authority to pay the compensation if any laches is there for rendering medical help to the passengers. When it was a courtesy to render medical help so in that case compensation can not be claimed if any laches is there as because the Railway does not take any fees for render medical help if required.
Under this circumstances we find that the contention of the complainants have not been proved by the cogent evidence. On the other hand the O.Ps have proved by documents that they have no laches or negligence from their part to render the medical assistance inside the train compartment to the deceased. But the deceased died due to his natural death as he was suffering from tuberculosis. The Railway Authority is not bound to stop the train in any place for rendering medical assistance to the passengers when the rule is not specific in this matter. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.Ps as the O.Ps had no deficiency in service.
We find that the complainant is totally failed to prove their case and there is no laches and deficiency in service from the part of the O.Ps and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost against the O.Ps.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
