KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.775/2012

JUDGMENT DATED : 31.07.2014

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.147/2009 on the file of CDRF, Kollam order dated: 13.08.2012)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                 : MEMBER

Jayamole,

D/o.Thankamma,

Pallivadakkathil,.

Mukkode.P.O

Kundara,                                                APPELLANT

Kollam - 691 503

(By Adv.Smt.S.Sheeja, Tvpm)

Vs.

1. The General Manager,

Southern Central Railway,

Secontharabad, Andhra Pradesh

2. The General Manager,                                  RESPONDENTS

Southern Railway,

Chennai

3. The Station Master,

Railway, Kollam

(By Adv.Sri.S.Renganathan, Tvpm)

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                        The appellant was the complainant in CC.No.147/2009 in the CDRF, Kollam. The appellants sought compensation from the opposite parties for their deficiency in service on the following allegations. On 27.03.2007 the complainant and her brother Jaison were returning to Kollam from Nizamudeen railway station in Delhi in the Suvarna Jayanthi Express. When they were about to reach the Vijayawada Railway station in Andhrapradesh, the window shutter fell on the hand of the complainant. Her little finger was heavily wounded resulting in uncontrolled flow of blood. The lock of the window was worn out and the shutter was dilapidated. But the authorities had not cared to repair it. The matter was immediately reported to the Superintendent of Railways at Vijayawada. But he expressed inability to attend her and advised them to seek help at the destination point. So the complainant and her brother continued the journey suffering all the torture. On reaching Kollam complaint was made to the Station Master and to the Railway Police there. They sent the complainant to the District Hospital, Kollam. Subsequently, the injury aggravated and the complainant had to under go treatment for one and half months. The complainant was injured due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant also lost opportunity to write MOH examination proposed to be conducted by the Ministry of Kuwait for nursing job there. The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite parties.

            2.        The opposite parties contended before the Consumer Forum that it lacked jurisdiction as the matter is falling under sections 13 & 15of Railway Claims Tribunals Act 1987. The incident of window shutter falling on the hand of the complainant occurred at Vijayawada. But she had not given written complaint to the on duty TTE of the train or the station superintendent. She continued her journey up to her destination point and gave complaint. She could have made written complaint to any of the railway staffs. The first opposite party is in no way connected with the maintenance of the said train. The allegation that the complainant had obtained visa to proceed to Kuwait for job and had taken ticket for her journey and could not appear for the examination due to the injury is denied. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant should have been careful in latching the window shutter and make complaint if there was any mal functioning. The compensation claimed is exaggerated.

            3.        The complainant gave evidence before the Consumer Forum as PW1. Exts.P1 to P9 were marked on her side. One witness was examined on the side of the opposite parties and Ext.D1 was marked on their side. As per the impugned order the Consumer Forum upheld the allegation of deficiency in service, but awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.1500/-. The complainant felt that the compensation awarded is meagre. Hence the appeal. Sufficiency of the compensation awarded is the only point in dispute in this appeal. The opposite parties have not preferred appeal challenging the conclusions of the Consumer Forum.

            4.        It is not disputed that while the complainant and her brother were travelling in Suvarna Jayanthi Express from Nizamuden to Kollam, the window shutter of the coach in which they were travelling fell on the hand of the complainant and injured her on 27.03.2007 when the train reached near Vijayawada railway station. The admitted facts clearly show deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the Consumer Forum rightly invoked jurisdiction as Kollam Station was the destination point. The opposite parties have not challenged the conclusion of the consumer forum that it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as well as its finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So these factual findings have become final.

            5.        Regarding the quantum of compensation claimed by the complainant it can be seen from Exts.p2 & P3 that she was given treatment at the District Hospital, Kollam only as an outpatient. Ext.P2 op ticket reveals that x-ray of her right hand was taken and it was found that she had sustained fracture to the third phalanx of right little finger. Consequent pain and rest for the right hand would be necessary though the injury is not a grievous one. So on the said account the complainant is entitled to reasonable compensation. The complainant also claimed that she had booked air ticket for journey to Kuwait and could not under take this same due to the injury. But the Consumer Forum disallowed compensation on this account because despite direction the complainant could not produce the original of Ext.P7 ticket. The Consumer Forum therefore rightly assumed that the complainant had obtained refund of the air ticket after cancelling the same. Regarding the argument that the complainant lost opportunity to get employment abroad, the Consumer Forum observed that the complainant has not challenged the claim of the opposite parties that she is now actually working abroad. It is also pertinent to notice that chance of getting employment is a mere possibility compensation for which can not be precisely quantified. So the Consumer Forum rightly limited the claim of the complainant to the injury and suffering occasioned by the falling of the window shutter of the coach in which she was travelling. Considering the gravity of the injury the compensation awarded appears to be reasonable.   Hence we find no merit in the appeal.

                        In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

           V.V.JOSE                     : MEMBER

BE/

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACAUD

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.775/2012

JUDGMENT

 DTD : 31.07.2014

                                                                                                                                           BE/