Complaint filed on: 23.06.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 03.03.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1122/2014

DATED THIS THE 03^rd MARCH OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Amaresh N Makal

s/o N.S.Makal

aged about 38 years

R/at. No.86, 2^nd Main

Samruddi Enclave Subramanyapura Post

Bengaluru-560061 

By Adv.Sri.Sharath S Gowda

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

Indian Railways

(South Western Railway)

Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Divisional Office, Bengaluru Division

Bengaluru-560023

By Adv.Sri.S.R.Khamrol Khan

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the negligence and the serious deficiency in service against the Opposite party/Indian railway in connection with the unfortunate fire accident occurred on 28.12.13 in AC coach B1 of Nanded express train and has claimed the reliefs of:

1. Rs.30,000/- for loss of property
2. Rs.3 lakhs as compensation
3. Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings
4. Rs.1,432/- towards refund of fare amount

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that by taking Ex-A1 ticket, he was travelling from Bengaluru to Yadgir in seat no.64 of B1 AC 3tire coach on the night of 27.12.13 in the Nanded express (train no.16594). During the midnight the fire incident took place in his bogie, resulting the death of 28 persons and injuries to others and he narrowly escaped from the death at about 3.05am. The said incident occurred due to negligence on the part of the railway authorities as supported by Ex-A2 to Ex-A4 paper publications. There were no TT, maintenance staff and police personal in the said coach, though it was mandatory under law.  Their absence amounts to violation of rules and regulations and safety standards which amounts to negligence on their part and deficiency in their service. He lost mobile worth Rs.15,000/- and the bag consisting certain valuables worth exceeding Rs.30,000/-. He sent the legal notice Ex-A5 but it was not replied. Hence this complaint is filed.

          3. The Opposite party/Indian railways filed the version admitting the fire accident in coach B1 of Nanded express but denied all the allegations made against it. The Opposite party contends that the Complainant is bad for non-joinder of IRCTC from where the Complainant purchased the ticket. The Complaint is barred by jurisdiction as the remedy is u/s 13 & 15 of Railway Tribunal Act 1987. There was no deficiency in its service and negligence on its part. This complaint is an attempt to exaggerate the incident to claim Rs.30,000/- + Rs.15,000/- and to take advantage of unfortunate incident by making false claim. There was no cause of action for the complaint. It has taken utmost care in safeguarding the life and property of the passengers when unfortunate incident took place. Its responsible officers and staff were pressed in to service immediately. Hindupur RPSI registered the crime 99/2013 u/s 174 of CRPC. The matter is still under investigation, hence this complaint is pre-matured to make such allegations. There is no evidence at all to show that the fire incident occurred due to negligence on its part. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs as misconceived and pre-matured.

          4. The Complainant and the official of Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences. The Complainant has relied on Ex-A1 to A6 documents. Opposite party has relied on Ex-B1 to B3 documents. Written arguments were filed by both sides. Arguments were heard. Perused the records.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the negligence of railway authorities and deficiency in their service when fire incident to 3tire AC coach B1 of Nanded express occurred in the early morning of 28.12.13 and thereby he was affected as alleged  ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that during the midnight of 27 & 28.12.13, when Nanded express train no.16594 was travelling from Bengaluru via Yadgir AC coach B1 caught fire, as a result 28 passengers died and other number of persons sustained grievous and simple injuries. The said accident was reported/published in all newspapers including Ex-A2 (Vijaya Karnataka), Ex-A3 (Times of India), Ex-A4 (The Hindu).

8. In Ex-A2 newspaper it is also reported that the Railway Minister Sri.Mallikarjuna Kharge who was in Gulbarga directed the high level enquiry declaring all possible help to LR’s of the deceased and the injured persons from the Central Government with a direction to railway officials to involve in rescue operation. It is also reported that most of the neighboring district people were the passengers therein. In Ex-A3 it is mentioned that there were 64 passengers in B1 AC coach and among them 38 persons became survivors who had different stories for their escape. In Ex-A4 it is reported that there were 65 passengers out of whom 26 perished in the mishap. The said coach B1 is described as air conditioned 3A coach.

          9. It is also undisputed that the Complainant being the passenger at seat no.64 of the said B1 AC 3A coach was travelling from Bengaluru towards Yadgir by paying train fare of Rs.1,410/- and IRCTC charge of Rs.22.47.

10. As contended by the Complainant, he was narrowly escaped from the death by jumping out of the slowly moving train around 3.05 am. In his affidavit evidence he has admitted that somehow he managed to find his way to the door and thereby jumped from the slowly moving train. The Complainant has stated that he suffered from mental agony and severe damages to his property also. His narration is that he was totally upset with shock and damages to his properties.

11. In Ex-A3/Times of India news it is reported on hearing the Complainant himself, that the Complainant escaped without a scratch and managed to get on to another train and continued his journey to Shahapur his native place to attend to the house warming ceremony and all that mattered him was to escape the interno and save his life. The Complainant gave statement also to Vijaya Karnataka/Ex-A2 which reported by quoting his name that after the chain was pulled by the neighboring coach passengers, the train was stopped and immediately he got down with others and later learnt that it was near Puttaparthi. All the newspapers produced collected information on 28.12.13 from the Complainant. Thereby his published statements become the real version. It is also reported that the fire started from the other end of his bogie and it appears that comparing to all the passengers he was the luckiest being the last passenger in the said bogie, who had all chances to escape without injuries. Accordingly he safely got down when the train stopped after pulling of chain. His own statements admitted before the press falsify his contention taken in the complaint and thereby it appears that the Opposite party has rightly contended that he has exaggerated the version.

12. If at all the Complainant had lost anything, he could have stated before the press people. He had the opportunity to get down along with his luggage, after the train was stopped. Ex-A3/Times of India has further reported under the head “at the lucky end of the coach” that BS Makal at 5 am received the phone message that Complainant was not at the point where the fire was caught and he had a narrow escape. This report says that the Complainant who got down from the train after 3.05 am after he reached to safe place, informed to his brother, over the mobile phone. The presumption is that he used his mobile after getting down from the train. If at all he had lost the mobile he could have addressed his people to the effect of lost properties and he could have lodged the police complaint also.  Thereby his statements, evidence about the lost properties also become falsified.

13. The Complainant was strong enough both mentally and physically as reported by the press and his health condition was not proved as deteriorated after the train accident. He could have produced the medical reports and supported documents to establish how his health was effected. He has not established through such medical records about his alleged severe psychological health relation problem which makes him unable to travel in the train and suddenly wakes up when he sleeps out of shock. In the absence of such cogent evidence his alleged deteriorated health becomes unreliable.  

14. The Complainant has contended that the railway authorities had not adopted the safely standards for the safe journey of the passengers and the said act amounts to serious negligence and deficiency in their service. But he has not produced any supporting documents as to what are such deficient items he found. He has contended that there was no TT, maintenance staff or police personal in his AC coach and it is also remained as the bald oral allegations without any supporting documents of railway authorities about the deputation/non-deputation of staff. The Opposite party has contended that all the railway people pressed in to service of that situation discharging their liabilities to safeguard the lives and properties of the passengers. The railway PSI registered the crime 90/2013 at Hindupur. There is no evidence from the Complainant as to whether he was present near the incident spot for the observation of the absence of service by the railway authorities. His evidence that he was forced to see the fate of the victims does not prove the absence of the railway staff. The fire incident was occurred within a fraction of minute and the enquiry report was not yet received even on the date of filing of this complaint. When the investigation was going on seriously to find out the responsible person for the incident, the bald direct allegations against the railway authorities by the Complainant cannot be taken as proved and hence the Complainant has failed to establish the ingredients of the said allegations.

15. The railway authorities has issued Rs.4,50,000/- each to the LR’s of the deceased 26 passengers in addition to Rs.50,000/- paid earlier. The said payments were made within 3 or 4 days of the incident. Similarly the 5 grievously injured persons received Rs.1 lakh each and 2 injured with small injuries received Rs.50,000/- each within 2 to 4 days. The said ex-gratia payment mentioned in three separate sheets marked Ex-B1 to B3. Thereby also the bald allegations of the Complainant about the alleged deficiency and negligence cannot be accepted.

16. As rightly contended by the Opposite party sec.124 of the Railway Act, the loss, destruction, damage of goods of the passengers in the train met with accident/derailment has to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal, which is exclusively established to consider his alleged claims.

17. Under sec.13 & 15 Railway Claims Tribunal Act, the jurisdiction, powers and authority have to be dealt by the Railway claims Tribunal only and not in any civil courts. It is not the case that the Complainant has the general/alternative remedy to file the complaint before this forum. The Opposite party has contended that the Complainant got issued the legal notice after lapse of 5 months of the incident as a result of after thought only with an intention to gain illegally by devaluing the sincere efforts made by the railway staff and it cannot be  brushed aside.

18. In view of the above observations the Complainant has failed to establish the alleged negligence in deploying the required staff by the Opposite party and deficiency in their service and hence Consumer Dispute no.1 is answered in the negative.

          19. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 3^rd day of March 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Copies of  Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party