Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

236/2014

Shreevallabha R.Kulkaran, - Complainant(s)

Versus

THe Commercial Officer, Southern Railways - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Joshi V.Balaji

08 May 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  10.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  08.05.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

MONDAY  THE 08^th  DAY OF MAY 2017

 

C.C.NO.236/2014

 

 

Shreevallabha R.Kulkarni,

Age:Major Occ:Business,

R/o.Hosayellapur Main Road, Opp,

JUDJI Hanuman Temple Dharwad,

State of Karnataka.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Commercial Officer,

Southern Railways Chennai Division,

Channai

 State of Tamilnadu,

Chennai – 03.

 

2. Divisional Manager,

Southern Railways Chennai Division,

Channai ,

State of Tamilnadu,

Chennai – 03.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 16.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.ArunJoshi, V.Balaji

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : Mr.N.R.Narayanen

         

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to award the compensation of Rs.15,70,000/- to him with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant belongs to Karnataka State and he has visited Chennai in the month of November 2013. The Complainant has booked return ticket to Hubli train No.17313 by sleeper class with PNR No.4601885363, to be traveled on 10^th November 2013.  While the Complainant was boarding the above said train, which was at platform while he was getting in bogie, the Complainant fell down as he kept his feet on water, which was on a platform near to train, then the Complainant fell on platform, as he got slipped due to water on platform. It is because of negligence of railway staff, who has not cleaned the platform properly. Due to this incident the Complainant was under shock and pain, the parents of the Complainant who were along with the Complainant intimated the incident to railway staff available in platform and by railway ambulance the Complainant was shifted to Apollo Hospital at Greams road, Chennai, It  was reported in the concerned railway record with numbered APO/MAS Lr.No M/P.50/TRIA/2013-14/814, the copy of the said letter issued by southern Railway Chennai division is produced.  The Complainant was admitted as indoor patient and he has got fractured left patella with lower pole commutation and got admitted with bearing patient identifier No.CMHIP35784 as UHID AC 01.0002740050. The copy of the Discharge summary issued by Apollo Hospital and got operated for fracture, he has paid the medical bills of Rs.1,50,061.00/- then the Complainant is constrained to be in Chennai for further treatment for that he has taken room on rent. The Complainant was shifted to Ddharwad Karnataka by road, in a private vehicle. In Dharwad also the Complainant was bedridden for one and half month made huge expenses for physiotherapy and food and nutrition. The Complainant had kept a servant for assistance for one month and the Complainant has not attended business work for two months. The cause for this incident is negligence of railway staff at Chennai station, who have left lot of water on platform, due to which the platform became slippery, for which the Complainant fell down and as to face unfortunate things as said earlier for all these things Indian railways Chennai Division is held responsible. The Complainant issued legal notice to the respondents through his counsel on 17.07.2014 calling upon the respondents to pay the compensation. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to award the compensation of Rs.15,70,000/- to him with cost of the Complaint.          

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          On 10.11.2013 while the Complainant walking near the waiting hall area did he slips and falls by himself and not due to water in the platform near the coach.  The Complainant had informed the duty doctor that he slipped and fell down near the waiting hall and did not say anything about water on the floor or failure of the railway officials to clean the platform area where he fell down. It is stated in the Apollo Hospital records also that the Complainant fell down while walking. Thus, as per original records, the correct fact is that the Complainant had slipped and fell down by himself while walking near the waiting hall. Now, in order to file the present Consumer Complaint and thereby seek compensation for minimizing his medical expenses, the Complainant had falsely stated that he slipped and fell down due to water in the platform and that the platform had not been cleaned properly. The floor and platform surface are non slippery and hundreds of passengers walk on the floor every day without giving any complaints. In case of water spillage by passengers, the floor is immediately cleaned and mopped and caution boards are placed for alerting passengers. In the case of the Complainant, water on the floor, the allegation about water on the floor is an afterthought and made with the ulterior motive of attributing negligence on the Opposite Party. The claim for compensation is therefore not tenable and is liable to be rejected.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?  If so  to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The Complainant belongs to native of Karnataka State and he is a business man. He came to Chennai in connection with his business He booked return ticket to Hubli Train No.17313 in a sleeper class to be travelled on 10.11.2013 and the said ticket is marked as Ex.A1.

5. According to the Complainant on 10.11.2013 when he boarded above said train while he was getting in bogie, he fell down as he kept his feet on water on a platform near to train as he got slipped due to water on platform and the railway staff failed to clean the platform properly is negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence they have committed deficiency in service.

6. The Opposite Parties case is that while the Complainant walking the area nears the waiting hall he did slip and fall by him and not due to water in the platform near the coach and further their cases supported by the Ex.A3 discharge summary filed by the Complainant and therefore they have not committed any deficiency in service.

7. As per the pleading in the Complaint while the Complainant getting into the bogie he slipped and fell down and sustained fracture on the left patella and immediately through the railway ambulance taken to the Apollo Hospital admitted and got treatment. The manner of incident stated above disputed by the Opposite Parties and only while he is walking, he slip and fell down near the waiting hall area.  Ex.A3 is the discharge summary issued by the Apollo Hospital to the Complainant. In the said discharge summary the Complainant alleged that “complains of pain left knee following history of slippage of foot while walking and fall”.

8.  The Complainant made the above statement to the doctor at Apollo Hospital immediate to the occurrence while he was admitted.  Therefore after occurrence first time the above statement made to the doctor is only about the narration of the incident.  All the narration of the incident in the Complaint and in Ex.A5 notice is all made after the statement made to the doctor. Therefore the statement made to the doctor at the first time immediate to the occurrence has to be accepted. While accepting the doctor statement, the incident alleged by the Complainant in the pleading that while he getting into the bogie he slips and fell down  cannot be accepted. Therefore, the incident occurred as alleged by the Opposite Parties only had been took place while the Complainant walking in the platform he himself fell down due to slippage of his foot. Hence the manner in which the incident alleged by the Complainant took place is rejected. As the Complainant himself fell down while he was walking due to slippage of his foot, we hold that there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.

9.  The Complainant relied on decision of the Tamil Nadu State Commission reported in I (2006) CPJ 186 (TN) (UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS. DINDIGUL DISTRICT CONSUMER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION & ORS.) and various decision of the National Commission reported in IV (2005) CPJ 79 (NC) (DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER & ANR. VS. ABHISHANKAR ADHIKARI) , I (2010) CPJ 170(NC) (UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VS. SHIV DEVI AGARWAL & ANR.) and I (2011) CPJ 268(NC)(GULSHAN KUMAR MENDIRATTA & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.) and contended that the above decision supports that the  Complainant is a Consumer and by virtue of section 3 of the CP Act this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. There is no quarrel that the Complainant in this case is a Consumer and this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this Complaint. Further, the facts in the judgment of the State Commission reported in I (2006) CPJ 186 is that the claim made in that case, the Complainant fell into pit in the platform and there was no warning sign board, whereas in the case in hand it is held above that the incident itself had not taken place as alleged by the Complainant and the Complainant himself slip and fell down. Hence, in view of the facts in the case in hand is different from that of the facts referred above and the said State Commission Judgment do not apply to the facts of the case in hand. 

10. Therefore, in view of the forgoing discussions, it is held that the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

 

11. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 08^th day of May 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 10.11.2013                   Train Ticket

Ex.A2 dated 21.01.2014                   Information under RTC Act

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Discharge Summary

Ex.A4 dated 14.11.2013                   Medical Bill

Ex.A5 dated 17.07.2014                   Legal Notice

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      ……. NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT