BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 77/11.
THIS THE 21st DAY OF MAY 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- 1. Sri. Harischandragouda S/o. Late Bheeanagouda,
age major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Jakaladinni,
Tq. Mani, Dist: Raichur.
2. Rajeshwari W/o. Sharanappagouda, age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Garaladinni village, Tq: Dist: Raichur.
3. Shekaragouda S/o. Bhimanagouda, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Jakaladinni, Tq. Manvi, Dist: Raichur.
4. Sarvamangala W/o. Virupakshappagouda, Age: 46 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Chimalapur village, Tq. Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. General Manager, South Central Railway,
Secunderabad (AP)
2. The Station Manager, Raichur Railway
Station, Raichur.
CLAIM :- For the opposites to pay a compensation amount
of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest and cost.
Date of institution :- 02-11-11.
Notice served :- 23-11-11.
Date of disposal :- 21-05-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. Shashidhargouda Kellur, Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. D. Suresh, Advocate.
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
******
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant No.1 Harischandragouda and three others against opposite South Central Railway under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest and cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, complainant Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heir of late Bheemangouda R/o. Jakaladinni. On 21-04-2011 when he was getting down from the Shirdi express train in Raichur Railway Station of Plot Form No-1 along with his friends.
Opposite No-2 gave green signal to the train driver and thereafter the driver of the train started moving without observing the passengers as such, Bheemangouda fell on Railway Track and he died, it was due to negligence of the opposite No-1’s staff who is opposite No-2. All of the complainants got issued legal notice to opposites to pay compensation, but opposites shown their negligence as such, they filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in it.
3. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their Advocate, opposite No-2 filed written version and opposite No-1 adopted the same written version. The brief facts of the written version filed by the opposites are that, the General Manager, Railway is the proper authority, without impleading the General Manager this complaint is not maintainable. The word untoward incident has been defined U/sec. 123(C)(2) of Railway Act, as such there was no negligence on the part of the Railway Authority, this forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the subject matter of the complaint. In view of section 13 R/W Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Accordingly they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the facts and circumstances stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant Nos. 1 to 4 prove that, on 21-04-2011 in Plot Form No-1 Railway Station at Raichur late Bheemangouda R/o. Jakaladinni died, while getting down from the train bearing No. 06002 due to sudden moving it from Plot Form No-1 which was prompted by opposite No-2 Station Master by giving green signal and therefore the said Bheemanagouda fell on the Railway Track and died and thereby opposite Nos. 1 & 2 found guilty under deficiency in their services.?
2. Whether complainant Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled for the relief’s as prayed in this complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant No-1 was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Affidavit-evidence of eye witness to the incident by name Basavarajayya was filed, he was noted as PW-2. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 are marked. On the other hand, the learned advocate for opposite No-1 & 2 submitted that opposites have no evidences on their behalf and closed his side. Hence arguments heard on the main matter and this case is posted for judgment.
7. The main contention of opposites in their written version is that in view of section 13 R/W Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act of 1987. This forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint. Railway Claims Tribunal Act provides separate tribunal for to decide such claims. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act is not over riding effect on the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Hence this forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint.
8. In support of his submissions, he relied on two rulings:
(1) AIR 2004 Supreme Court 448 Secretary, Tirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society V/s. M. Lalilta, (dead) through his L.rs and others Respondents.
(2) AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1384, Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation V/s. Consumer Protection Council.
9. The learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that, section 13 R/W Section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act of 1987 or any other provisions of the said Act are not baring this Consumer Forum to try the subject matter of this complaint. In support of this contention he relied upon the following rulings:
1) (2011) C.J. 511 (NC) Gulshan Kumar Mendiratta & Others V/s.
Union of India & Another.
(2) III (2011) CPJ 34 (NC), Union of India & Another V/s. Savita Ben SumanBhai Patel & Others.
(3) 2011 (3) TAC 36 (Delhi) S. Sawhney (Wing comm) V/s. U.O.I.
10. He also referred the judgment in a case of this forum bearing CC.No. 51/08, in which there was a claim of the complainant due to death of a person in Railway accident. This Forum dismissed the complaint, but the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble National Commission have allowed the complaint. Therefore Railway authorities filed writ petition bearing No. 25096/10 (GM-CON) before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga. The Hon’ble High Court also settled the matter for certain amount.
11. We have also gone through the relevant provisions under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act of 1987 and the judgment referred by the learned advocate for opposite as noted at Sl.No. 1 & 2 above. In the first ruling referred by the learned advocate for opposite their lordships observed that when party approaches both the consumer forum and for arbitration under Co-operative Societies Act. Question of conflict decisions may out come as such party cannot avail the benefit of the provision of both acts. In the instant case, it is not a case of opposite that, the present complainants have approached consumer forum and also simultaneously they have approached Accident Railway Tribunal under the said Act. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the application of section 3 of the C.P. Act and jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, we are of the view that, the principles laid down by their lordships of the above said rulings are not favourable to the case of opposites, but is favourable to the case of complainant.
12. With great respect to their lordships of the second ruling referred by the learned advocate for opposite reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1384 the said principles are also not applicable to the facts of this case.
13. With great respect to their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court we and in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the rulings referred by the learned advocate for complainant, we are of the view that, this forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint by virtue of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. This view was also supported by judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission and the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in a case of this Forum bearing CC.No. 51/08, wherein, there was a death of a person in Railway Accident at Raichur Railway Station.
14. As regards to negligence we have not accepted the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite as there is no affidavit-evidence of any one of the parties as a rebuttal evidence to over come the evidence of PWs 1 & 2. Hence, we have restricted ourselves to discuss above said legal aspect of jurisdiction point of consumer forum the entertaining he subject matter of complaint as opposites have not denied other facts of this complaint. We have accepted the evidences of PW-1 and eye witness of PW-2 in he background of undisputed facts coupled with the principles of the ruling noted in 2012(1) CPR 42 (NC) Indian Institute of Professional Studies V/s. Smt. Rekha Sharma and came to a conclusion that complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of opposites and thereby we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
15. As regards to the entitlement of quantum of compensation amount is concerned, it appears to us from the records that, deceased was aged about 70 years at the time of accidental death. As such, we have taken into consideration of other aspects of his probable present and future earnings, we are of the view that, awarding a lumpsum global compensation amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- is just and proper compensation amount for these complainants, accordingly complainant Nos. 1 to 4 who are Lrs of deceased Bheemanagouda (which is undisputed fact by the opposites) are entitled to get global compensation amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
The complainants entitled to get lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
The complainants are also entitled to get a cost of Rs. 2,000/- from the opposites, Hence the complainant Nos-1 to 4 are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 2,55,000/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally,
accordingly we answered Point No-2.
POINT NO.3:-
16. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant Nos. 1 to 4 is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,55,000/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
The complainant Nos. 1 to 4 are also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 2,55,000/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
One month time is granted to opposites to pay the said amount to the complainants.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 21-05-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
