Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/225/2012

SIRDAR IQBAL SHERIFF - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

A. SURESH

12 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                                 BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                     Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 225/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.163/2011 dated 28.11.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore ]

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

Sridar Iqbal Sheriff,

S/o Akbar Sheriff

64, Karunanidhai Nagar

Old Sungam, Coimbatore                      ..Appellant/complainant

                                       Vs

1.The Divisional Manager

Southern Railways, Salem

2. The Chief Commercial Manager

G.M.Buildings

Southern Railways, Chennai-3           ..Respondents/opp.parties

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant    : M/s A.Suresh

Counsel for the Respondents/opp.parties  : Mr.K.Kumaran

 

The complainant is the appellant.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.No. 163/2011 dated 28.11.2011. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 5.6.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.      The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

   2.     The complainant travelled in coach B3 3 Tier AC compartment in Train.No.12626, Kerala Express on 19.1.2011 from Bopal to Coimbatore. While on journey on the next day at 9.40 p.m in the compartment when he was detached the berth in order to sit comfortable and fixed at with a Tower bold on his left side of stopper on the other side reading newspaper one of the side attached with the tower bolt of the berth which was in folded and kept straight on the leg with a tower bolt suddenly gave way because of the vibration jerks and jolts as a result of the speed of the train.  At about 9.40 a.m the tower bolt gave away and one side of the berth fell on the complainant’s left leg resulting in injury and swelling of the big toe. It caused unbearable pain to the complainant. The staff refused to bring the First Aid box inspite of his request but he was asked to go to the train guard and lodge a complaint and thereby after issuing legal notice, a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming refund of Rs.800/- towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and for cost.

3.      The opposite parties denied the allegations in their written version contending that the complainant had negligently in a casual manner made detachment of berth to sit in a casual manner not properly fixing which caused injury and as per the maintenance report of Engineer before the departure of train with thorough inspection was made on 15.11.2007 before the train left Trivandrum and the technical staff’s report gives no such defects in the rack condition of berths in the compartment.

4.       On the basis of both side of materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum accepted the contentions of the opposite party, dismissed the complaint.

5.         Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint. When he was as a passenger occupied the berth No.63 of the III AC compartment used the lower berth with some bolts, screws nuts and  stopper get worn out in due course of time are seldom replaced with the new one. The District Forum failed to appreciate that loosening of the screws, nuts, bolts and stopper are spontaneous due to speed jerks and vibrations and these defects can be found only in the running train and not in the stationed train. The District Forum failed to appreciate and go deep into the practical aspects in the journey and the injuries caused prove with medical test and thereby the appeal to be allowed.

6.      We have heard both side arguments and carefully considered the relevant materials in this regard, it is the admitted case of both side that the complainant had travelled from Bopal to Coimbatore through Kerala Express on 19.1.2011 and it is the allegation of the complainant when he was sojourning in the berth having seat No.63 while using the opposite seat by making the seats joints together unfolding tower bolt and stopper and fastening the same into the bolt lock and due to sudden unfolding of bolts and towers, the side berth full on the left leg of the complainant which caused suffering pain and on treatment at Coimbatore hospital as per medical records under Ex.A.5. On perusal of Ex.A.5, on 21.1.2011, he had treatment for complaint of pain in the left foot for one day due to fall of the bed on the foot. It was not reported that due to fall of the side berth and further the opposite party relied upon the report of the technical staff under Ex.B.1 letter of the J.E/C&W of the Railways to the DME of the Railways in which it is stated as follows:-

    “I was maintaining the rake of 13626/12625 Exp on 15.1.2011. Along with me Sri.A.Koyakutty, Sr.Tech/C&W was available to check and certify amenity fittings like latches, Tower bolts, door closers, defective fittings in berths etc. Along with Sri.Koyakutty Sri.C.Kumaresan, carpenter /C&W R.Sreekumar, Tech/C&W and Sri. K.Suresh, Tech were examined and rectified the defects one by on from one end of the rake to other end or rake covering all the ares like tatches, loose/defective fittings etc. All the works done were recorded”.

       In view of the same, the District Forum having taken into consideration of relevant materials observed that except the allegations of the complainant, no documents or evidence had been let in by the complainant to show that there was defect in the stopper of berth or tower bolt  leading to falling down of the berth due to vibration jerks and jolts as the train took speed and finally causing injury to him.

      Further when the complainant sustained injuries due to the travel in Railway, he could have approached the Railways Claims Tribunal in this regard instead of approaching of Consumer Forum alleging deficiency which was not proved as observed by the District Forum after careful consideration and there by we are in entire agreement with the finding of the District Forum in this regard and  this appeal is deserved to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly,

            In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC No 163/2011 dated 28.11.2011.

      No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                      A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER