BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1556-2014

DATED ON THIS THE 29^th July 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, against the opposite party, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, and seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the pain, sufferings and mental agony, medical expenditure and also Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the loss of job and cost of the proceeding with other reliefs.
2.     The complainant sustained injuries, while getting down from the train, on 20.01.2014, at Akkihebbalu Railway Station.  The cause of injuries was due to stoppage of the train on the non-platform track.  He took treatment for the injuries on 21.01.2014, at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru.  The negligent act of the opposite party officials at the Akkihebbalu Railway Station has been alleged as deficiency in service.  The opposite party officials issued a vague reply to the notice.  Hence, the complaint, alleging deficiency in service and seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party denying the allegations, submits the complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction under section 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.  On 20.01.2014, due to crossing of another train, the Mysore-Shravanbelagola train was received on platform No.2, which has rail level platform.  Due to the negligence of the complainant only, he fell down and suffered injuries.  No complaints received at the station by any of the passenger.  The complainant’s notice has been replied on 23.01.2014, by the Divisional Railway Manager, Mysuru, stating, the Akkehebbalu station has been classified as ‘E’ class station and as per norms, only rail level platform has been provided.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service by it and prays for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.     The complainant filed his affidavit as evidence, relying on several documents.  The opposite party filed its version only and not lead its evidence by filing affidavit.  Both parties filed written arguments.  On hearing oral submissions and on perusing the material on record, the matter posted for orders.
5.      The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for the injuries sustained by him, while getting down from the train at Akkihebbalu Railway Station, thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
3. What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant purchasing the ticket travelled by the train to reach Akkihebbalu on 20.01.2014.  Thereby the complainant availed the services of the opposite party, hence under section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act, the complainant becomes a consumer of opposite party.  As such, the complaint is maintainable.  Hence, point No.1 answered in affirmative.
8.    Point No.2:- The complainant sustained injuries while alighting from the train at Akkihebbalu Railway Station on 20.01.2014.  The injury was caused due to stoppage of the train on the non-platform track.  Sustaining pain, took treatment at K.R.Hospital, Mysuru on 21.01.2014.  Further alleged the pain still persists.  The complainant alleged the injuries caused due to negligence of the opposite party officials only.  Hence, complained the same to the Divisional Office and sought for necessary action against the negligent officials and suitable compensation. 
9.    The opposite party contended that the Akkihebbalu Railway Station had been classified as ‘E’ class station and as per norms only rail lelvel platform had been provided.  On 20.01.2014, as there was crossing of Talaguppa-Mysore train, the Mysuru Shravana Belagola train was received on platform No.2, which had only rail level platform as per rules.  The complainant got injured for himself while getting down from the train, due to his negligence only.  There were no complaints by any of the co-passengers and non-suffered injuries while getting down from the train at Akkihebbalu Railway station on 20.01.2014.  Further, for the allegation of removal from the job, the opposite party is not responsible.  Hence, opposite party contended that, the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for.
10. On perusing the material on record, the train was received on platform No.2 at Akkihebbalu Railway station on 20.01.2014, which had only rail level platform as per norms.  The complainant bound to take care for himself while getting down from the train, which was stopped at rail level platform.  There were no complaints from any of the co-passengers regarding sustenance of injuries, having stopped the train on plat form No.2 on 20.01.2014.  The complainant had not complained at Akkihebbalu station, instead complained the same at Divisional Railway office at Mysuru on 21.10.2014 for the injuries and sought for necessary action against the negligent officials.  The complainant remained absent from 20.01.2014 to 29.01.2014, unauthorisedly, hence the employer removed him from the job.  So the complainant only responsible for the same.  In view of the above observations, there was no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite party.  As such, the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought.  Accordingly, the point no.2 is answered in the negative.
11. Point No.3:- From the above discussions, we are of the view that there was no negligence and deficiency in service by opposite party.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs. Hence, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2.  Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(D

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER