KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL.NO.13/03 JUDGMENT DATED:22/8/08 PRESENT:- JUSITCE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapurm Division, : APPELLANT Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram (By Adv.V.Vk.Anilkumar) Vs T.S.Sethuraman, “Anugraha”, 33 Sri Varaham Nagar, : RESPONDENT Vallakkadavu, Thiruvananthapuram and twenty others (By Adv.Jayadeep G. Nair, Amicus curae) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in OP.No.233/01 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram who are aggrieved by the order dated 20/11/02 wherein and whereby they are under directions to pay to the complainant and others a sum of Rs.32,000/- with future interest at 14.5% and also cost of Rs.2,000/-. 2. The grievances voiced in the complaint are that the complainant and some other passengers have booked tickets with the opposite parties to travel from Mathurai (UP) to Thiruvananthapuram on 25/3/2001. They had gone to Brindavan to participate in a religious function and the reservation was for their return journey. It is the case of the complainant that when the train arrived at Mathurai Junction the doors of the compartments were closed and only 4 or 5 people could entrain and the others were left in the platform. While trying to get into the train the complainant was pushed down and he fell down in the platform. It is his further case that there was no T.T.E or any other responsible person to control and regulate the passengers and because of the deficiency of service of the officials of the opposite parties, the remaining passengers could not travel by the same train though they were sent by the next train by the Station Master of Mathurai Railway station. 3. The opposite parties filed version contenting that the complainants did not reach the platform at the time of arrival of the train and that if anybody could not entrain the train it was because of their late arrival. They denied the allegation that the doors were closed contended and that there was no deficiency of service as the train had stopped in the railway station about 4 minutes and of those who were in the platform to travel by the train were accommodated. Pleading that there was no deficiency of service they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents P1 to P6. The opposite parties, apart from filing the version, did not tender any evidence to establish there case. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that there was no deficiency on the part of the appellants as those persons who were in the platform to travel by the train had been allowed to be entrained and those who were not able to travel by that train were only latecomers. It was also contented that the complainant had not produced any power of Attorney representing the other passengers and the complaint was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It was also argued that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the Forum had failed in considering the case of the opposite parties/appellants in its proper perspective. 6. The respondent, though appeared in person for the first few sittings remained absent and hence Adv.Jayadeep G.Nair had been appointed to be the amicus curae who argued the case on behalf of the respondent. Amicus curae argued the case supporting the findings and conclusions of the Forum below . He placed much reliance on Ext.P5 which was the authorization given by 16 passengers to the complainant. It is argued by him that the opposite parties have not tendered any evidence apart from filing the version. 7. On a careful consideration of the entire facts it is noted that though the appellants/opposite parties have contended that all persons who reached the platform to travel by the booked train could travel and that there was only 4 minutes stop for the train the same had not been established by them. It is to be further noted that pleading is not evidence and the opposite parties ought to have adduced evidence in support of their contentions. In the absence of any evidence to support the case of the opposite parties we are inclined to believe the case of the complainant especially in the light of the fact that the complainant was examined and nothing could be brought out by the opposite parties to discredit the case of the complainant. Ext.P5 also shows that the other passengers had given authorization to the complainant to file the case. As the strict provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in filing cases before the consumer forum, we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Forum below in awarding compensation and cost. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 20/11/02 of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram on OP.No.233/01. In the nature and circumstance of the case the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER JUSITICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Pk.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
