Date of filing : 21-01-2012
Date of order : 23 -08-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.19/2012
Dated this, the 23rd day of August 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Sumithran.K, S/o.Balakrishnan, } Complainant
Kuridil House, Po.Bengalam,
Nileshwaram.Via, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.M.Narayanan, Hosdurg)
1. General Manager, Southern Railway, } Opposite parties
Madras. Madras.Po.
2. Senior Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,
Po. Palakkad
(In person)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The question raised in this case is whether railway is liable to compensate a passenger for the rat bite injury from train? Complainant is the father of an endosulphan victim Abirami, who died on 10-10-2011. Complainant and his friend Raveendran booked reservation on 18-12-2011 from Nileshwar to Trivandrum to meet Chief Minister for getting benefits to endosulphan victims. During the journey, complainant sustained rat bite and injury when the train reached at Ernakulam. Though he had informed TTE about the rat bite he has not taken any steps for providing the service of a doctor. Though complainant continued his journey he could not meet Chief Minister as he has to undergone treatment n Government General Hospital, Trivandrum as per the instruction of the duty doctor at the railway station, Trivandrum. For the oral complaint given to Trivandrum railway station on that day, they did not given satisfactory reply. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Opposite parties filed a detailed version explaining the services rendered by railways to the nation and about maintenance and hygene in the train coaches. According to opposite parties complainant was travelling by availing a concession as per PNR No. 433-6316657/Tkt No. 70577082 in Train No.16348 on 18-12-2011. The annexure A3 submitted that as the record of G.H. Trivandrum seems to be not the correct and incomplete. The contention of the complainant that rats are poisonous creature is not correct. Another contention of opposite parties is that complainant misused the concession given by railway to a handicapped. Concession is provided to them because these persons cannot travel without the assistance of an escort. But here complainant took the assistance of a handicapped to grab this concession.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 to A5 marked. Complainant is cross-examined by the counsel of opposite parties. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and faced cross-examination. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the points arises for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. If so, what is the relief?
5. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that he booked reservation tickets for a journey from Nileshwar to Trivandrum on 18-12-2011 with his friend Raveendran. During the journey when they reach at Ernakulam, complainant has injured by rat bite from the coach. As soon as they reached at Trivandrum station in the early morning, he informed the duty doctor at Railway station and he was issued information to Government General Hospital, Trivandrum. Complainant consulted the duty doctor there and treated as out patient. He took one injection from there and continued treatment after reaching Nileshwar. Purpose of the journey was not fulfilled due to rat bite. Moreover, that incident caused mental shock on him. As rat fever caused deaths are increasing at that time so rat, and rat fever are nightmare to ordinary peoples.
6. Point No.1:
The complainant who was a passenger in Train No.16348 of 18-12-2011 availed a concession as per the PNR No.433-631665/Tkt No.70577082 as per Ext.A1. It is immaterial whether Raveendran accompanied the complainant or complainant accompanied Raveendran purpose of the journey is also immaterial. The complainant deposed before the Forum that he traveled with Raveendran to help him as well as to do his own avocation. Railway issued the concession under orthopeadically handicapped paraplegic persons/ patients who cannot travel without an escort”. Here also complainant escorted concession holder, Raveendran from Nileshwar to Trivandrum. The purpose of journey is immaterial. There is no doubt, complainant is a consumer. Moreover, Vinayavilas Sawant (SMT) V Union of India I (2008) CPJ 13 (NC) held that, it may be mentioned that every railway passenger is a consumer in terms of section 3 of Consumer Protection Act. For convenience point No.2 & 3 are to be discussed together.
7. Point Nos. 2& 3:
The case of the complainant is that he has sustained injury due to rat bite from train coach of train No.16348. Complainant produced Ext.A2, intimation given to the duty doctor by Sr. Manager on 19-12-2011. As per the intimation complainant was treated as an inpatient in Government General Hospital, Trivandrum, for rat bite/Banchkool bite @ foot while travelling in train. Ext.A3 is the prescription of Dr. Sherlin advising injections. Exts A1 & A3 are clear evidences for the rat bite sustained by the complainant from the train No.16348. He had continued treatment after reaching Nileshwar also. Ext.A4 is produced it proves that complainant continued the treatment till 16-01-2012. Ext.A4 affirms the case of the complainant.
8. Complainant deposed before the Forum that he explained to the TTE that he sustained injury on right leg. It is not correct to say that he has not complained to anybody that injury sustained due to rat bite. He travelled with Raveendran to help him as well as to his own avocation.
9. Considering the documents produced by the complainant and depositions made by the complainant before the Forum we are of the view that the case of the complainant is genuine. In a number of ruling by this commission including in the case of Vinayavilas Sawant(Smt) V Union of India I (2008) CPJ 13 (NC) and Gulshankumar Mendiratta & Ors V Union of India & Anr the question of jurisdiction has explained in detail.
“12. …….. it is to be stated that the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, would not be applicable to the present case because it confers jurisdiction on the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, for claims for compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non delivery of animals or goods, etc.
13. Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 reproduced below:
13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.--(1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act-
(a) relating to the responsibility of the Railway Administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-
(i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or nondelivery of animals or goods entrusted to Railway Administration for carriage by Railway;
(ii) compensation payable under Section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and
(b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a Railway Administration to be carried by railway.
[(1-A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil Court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under Section 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder.]
(2) The provisions of the [Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)] and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.
14. In the present case,ther injury is caused to human beings, and not to the animals and that it was not acting as a carrier of goods. Once Section 13 is not applicable, there is no question of applying the bar of jurisdiction under Section 15 of the said Act.
15. Apart from this, Section 128 of the Railways Act saves the right of the affected person to recover compensation under any other law for the time being in force.
Section 128 reads as under:
128. Saving as to certain rights: (1) The right of any person to claim compensation under Section 124 [or Section 124A] shall not affect the right of any such person to recover compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) or any other law for the time being in force; but no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident.
10. Here the complainant sustained injury from railway coach by rat bite, and he alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as the coaches were not properly cleaned and maintained by opposite parties. According to complainant Tea cup and food waste are dumped in the coach. Food waste usually attracts rats, and thus the complainant sustained Injury. The Assistant Commercial Manager who was examined as DW1 deposed before the Forum that “it is not due to the non cleaning of coach complainant has sustained rat bite. He admitted that there are several news paper reports about the improper maintenance of railway coaches. Recently there are many incidents which adversely affects the safety of passengers during train journeys prudent officers will take reasonable care and precautious after the first incident itself. But here after many such incidents also it is clear from the deposition of DW1 that they have not taken precaution to prevent this type of incidents.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay compensation of `10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. Failing which necessary penal action will be taken against opposite parties as per the request of the complainant.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Railway ticket dt.18-12-2011 from Nileshwar to Trivandrum.
A2.Certificate issued by Duty Doctor, GH/Trivandrum to complainant.
A3. 19-12-2011 Out patient Record. Govt. Hospital, Trivandrum.
A4.22-12-2011 Prescription issued by Taluk Hospital, Nileshwar
A5. News paper Mathrubhumi.17-01-2012.
PW1. K.Sumithran.
DW1. K.Kannan.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
