BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 113/2003 Filed on 12.03.2003<br /> Dated : 15.10.2008<br /> Complainants:<br /> <br /> 1.Indira, W/o late Captain P.K. Santhakumaran Nair, Pilla Veedu, Nettayam, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 2.K. Devaki Amma, Pilla Veedu, Nettayam, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 3.S. Prasanth, Pilla Veedu, Nettayam, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram represented by his Power of Attorney Holder Indira, Pilla Veedu, Nettayam, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 4.S. Praveen, Pilla Veedu, Nettayam, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> Additional Complainants:<br /> <br /> 5.D. Savithri Amma, 'Sreesylam', Near Choozhampala Temple, Velikunnu, Mukkola P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 6.P.K. Vasudevan Nair, 'Neelima', Nettayam, Katchani P.O, Tvpm.<br /> <br /> 7.D. Syama Kumari, Biju Nivas, Anakunnam, Pallickal P.O, Kilimanoor.<br /> <br /> 8.D. Sushama Devi, KP 2/73, 'Revathy', Choozhampala, Mukkola P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 44.<br /> (By adv. L. Santha Soman)<br /> Opposite party:<br /> <br /> Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai – 3. <br /> <br /> (By adv. V.K. Anil Kumar)<br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 14.03.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 08.08.2008, the Forum on 15.10.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> Brief facts of the case are as follows: The 1st complainant is the wife of the deceased Captain P.K. Santhakumaran Nair and complainants 2 to 8 are the legal heirs of the deceased Santhakumaran Nair. The deceased Captain Santhakumaran Nair was travelling from Ernakulam to Secunderabad along with his wife in train No. 7029 (Sabari Express), the former with a reserved ticket and the latter with an unreserved ticket. They boarded the train on 16.03.2002 from Ernakulam Railway station at about 11 a.m. When the train reached near Salem railway station the deceased was feeling uneasy. The deceased and his wife contacted the T.T.E for medical aid but in vain. When the train reached at Salem railway station his condition took a serious turn. The opposite party did not provide any facility for medical aid. When the train was at the Salem railway station Santhakumaran Nair died inside the train at about 7 p.m due to non-availability of medical aid. As per the complainants if medical aid was provided in time his life could have been saved. And they allege that the opposite party is legally bound to provide medical aid. The opposite party's failure and neglect to provide medical aid caused the death of Santha Kumaran Nair. Therefore the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainants for the death of Santha Kumaran Nair and for the hardships and mental agony caused to the deceased and to the complainants. Hence the complainants filed the complaint. <br /> The opposite party, General Manager, Southern Railway filed version. They denied the allegations put forward by the complainants against them. According to the opposite party there is no cause of action against him. The opposite party submitted that the petitioners have not mentioned the number of tickets. The passengers with unreserved tickets should not travel in reserved coach as per the rules of railway. The 1st petitioner did not accompany the deceased in the journey. The opposite party also alleges that the deceased has consumed liquor during the journey and he omitted blood. The T.T.E informed the matter through cell phone to the Deputy Station Superintendent at Salem and requested the presence of the DMO at Salem Junction. When the train reached at Salem the DMO attended the deceased and he was made to get down at Salem Junction and while the medical inspection was in progress he breathed his last. According to the opposite party they have given all the possible medical aid to the deceased. <br /> The 1st complainant filed proof affidavit and produced 5 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. From the opposite party's side 3 witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3. <br /> Points to be ascertained:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service or negligence on the part of opposite party?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs?<br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The 1st complainant, the wife of the deceased Santhakumaran Nair filed proof affidavit and produced 5 documents to prove their case. And she was examined as PW1. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the report of death by the Salem Railway Police. Ext. P2 is the postmortem certificate. Ext. P3 is the death certificate. Ext. P4 is the journey cum reservation ticket of Santha Kumaran Nair and Ext. P5 is the legal heirship certificate. <br /> In the complaint and the pleadings the complainants argued that the 1st complainant was also travelling along with Santha Kumaran Nair. The opposite party denied their statement. As per the opposite party the passenger with unreserved tickets should not travel in reserved coach as per the rules of the Railways. They argued that the 1st complainant has not accompanied the deceased during the journey. The complainant has failed to prove that statement. The complainant has not produced any document to prove that she had travelled along with her husband in the train. The 1st complainant pleads that though she did not possess any reserved ticket, she was allowed to travel along with her husband in the reserved compartment, but if this being the case what prevented the 1st complainant from producing her details of the ordinary travel ticket is not proved. In her deposition she stated that 'നെഞ്ചുവേദന തുടങ്ങി പെട്ടെന്നു തന്നെ എല്ലാം കഴിഞ്ഞൂ അതിനാല്‍ ഒരു medical aid-ഉം കിട്ടിയില്ല. And also in re-examination she has answered that നെഞ്ചുവേദന വന്നപ്പോള്‍ TTE-യെ വിവരം അറിയിച്ചോ (A) എനിക്ക് നല്ല ഓര്‍മ്മയില്ല. The pleadings in the complaint and deposition are different and she stated that സേലത്തു നിന്നാണ് മരണ വിവരം Railway അറിയിച്ചത്. From this deposition also it is revealed that at the time of death she was not there. <br /> In this complaint the opposite party examined 3 witnesses. The opposite party's witnesses also stated that the deceased Santha Kumaran Nair was alone and nobody had accompanied him. DW1 is the TTI, DW2 is the Station Master, Southern Railway and DW3 is the doctor who had examined the deceased at Salem. From the deposition of these witnesses it is clear that there is no deficiency in service or negligence from their part. The complainants have failed to substantiate their case with ample evidence. Though the opposite parties have alleged that the deceased had consumed liquor while travelling, but there is no evidence for substantiating the same. <br /> In this case the complainant alleged that the opposite party did not provide medical aid in time to the deceased. If they did so, the life of the deceased would have been saved. But in this case from the recorded evidence we have seen that the opposite party had made all the efforts to give medical aid promptly. In the postmortem report it is stated that the death is a natural one. From the deposition of the complainant and the witnesses, this Forum finds that the opposite parties have provided medical aid in time but unfortunately the life of the deceased could not be saved. The opposite parties have contended that the TTE had enquired about the availability of a doctor as a traveller in the running train in the reservation chart and no doctor was available. The complainants have no case that though there was a doctor available in the train it was not made available to them. The complainant itself pleaded that when the train reached Salem railway station, doctor was ready for providing medical aid. In the above circumstance, we find that there is no merit in allowing this complaint and the complainants have miserably failed to establish their case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainants. Hence the complaint is dismissed, no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th October 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 113/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - Indira S. Nair<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Original Report of death dated 17.03.2002.<br /> P2 - Triplicate Postmortem Certificate No. 289/2002 dated <br /> 17.03.2002.<br /> P3 - Original Death Certificate issued by Salem City Municipal <br /> corporation dated 27.06.2002.<br /> P4 - Original journey cum reservation ticket No. 81865253 dated <br /> 16.03.2002.<br /> P5 - Original Certificate No. K.Dis. 21133/2002/G4 dated <br /> 17.05.2003 issued by Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :<br /> DW1 - F. Wilson<br /> DW2 - P. Govindan <br /> DW3 - Dr. Miss K. Indira Devi<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />