DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V,
: SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N.K, MEMBER.
DATE OF FILING:24.06.2023.
CC/165/2023
Balakrishnan.V, - Complainant
Murugan Arul Illam, Vinayaka Nagar,
Nemmar Post, Palakkad-678 508.
(Party-in-person)
Vs
The station Master, -Opposite Party
Palakkad Junction, Railway Station,
Olavakkode, Palakkad.
(By Adv.G.Jayachandran)
ORDER
BY SMT.VIDYA A., MEMBER.
1. The complainant was on a journey from Kanjangad to Palakkad on 14.03.2023. An accident took place during his journey inside the boggie and the tip of the ring finger of his right hand got chopped off. This happened when the window shutter dropped down all of a sudden and it is due to the disorder of the locking system of the shutter. So, he approached this Commission with this complainant for getting a compensation of Rs.20 lakhs form the opposite party for the mental agony and physical and financial loss incurred by him.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. The opposite party in their version had denied the entire allegations in the complaint. They had contended that the alleged physical injury comes under the jurisdiction of the Railway Tribunal and it cannot be tried before this Commission. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the necessary party has not been impleaded and the station master, Palakkad cannot be arrayed as a party to the complaint.
The complainant travelled in the train with an unreserved ticket; but he entered the reserved coach without any up gradation and he entered there without the knowledge of TTT. Travelling in a reserved coach with unreserved ticket is in violation of Section 155 of the Railways Act. When the alleged accident occurred, the TTE offered medical assistance at SRR Station; but it was denied by the complainant and he insisted that he will take care of his wound as he was de-boarding at Palakkad Station. TTE of the coach had informed it to the on-duty RPF officials.
There is no documentary evidence to show that the injury caused is due to the shutter full. The complainant did not produce any medical records regarding the same.
All the coaches of train no.12602 are fitted with modified gravity shutter safety double catch which prevents the free fall of shutter. It is a fool proof system and any failure of double catch will only be due to physical damage or by negligence of the complainant by deliberately uplifting the stopper duly causing the shutter to fall. The records of regular maintenance done at the Mangalore Central coaching depot on 12.03.2023 show that there is no defect in any of the coaches. In the maintenance done on 16.03.2023, the coach is again inspected and found no defect. Further, after receiving the complaint on 04.04.2023, the coach was again inspected and found that the locking arrangements and all the shutters are intact.
There is no cause of action for the complainant. The complaint is filed only to extort money from the opposite party and to evade the consequences of violation of Section 155 of the Railways Act. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs form the opposite party. Hence, the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. From the pleadings of parties, the following points were framed for consideration.
1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the injury caused to the complainant is due to the shutter fall as alleged?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
5. Any other reliefs.
5. Complainant’s evidence comprised of proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A4. Marking of Ext.A1 is objected to on the ground that the said document does not pertain to the complaint. Marking of Ext.A3 is objected as it is a copy of a photograph of an injury and can be marked only through the author. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B4 marked from their side and evidence was closed. Heard the opposite party.
6. Point No.1
One of the contentions raised by the opposite party is that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The complaint is filed against the Station Master of Palakkad Junction and the necessary party is not impleaded.
It is true that the Station Master is an employee of Railway and he cannot be made party for the alleged negligence/fault on the part of the Railway as complained by the complainant. So, if any deficiency in service is found against the opposite party, Order will be passed only against the Railway and not against the Station Master. Further, the complaint is filed by the complainant as a party-in-person who is unaware of the technicalities and his actual complaint is against the Indian Railway. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2
The opposite party in their version had taken the contention that the complainant had not submitted any documentary evidence which substantiate that the injury caused is due to the shutter fall. Further, they added that the complainant did not produce any medical records regarding the same.
8. In order to prove his case, the complainant produced four documents which were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A2 is the train ticket dated 14.03.2023 showing his travel from Kanjangad to Palakkad. Ext.A3 is the copy of the photographs showing the injury on the finger tip (It is objected as it is a copy of copy and can be marked only through the author). Ext.A4 is the copy of photograph showing the picture of the shutter. Ext.A1 is the copy of the letter issued by Primary Health Centre, Nenmara allowing the complainant’s request to issue the copy of casualty register to him. In Ext.A1, the issuing authority had stated that on 14.03.2023, the complainant had undergone treatment in their casualty. He also produced the copy of the page of the register showing the treatment undergone by him.
9. The opposite party also produced four documents in support of their contention. Ext.B1 is the report by the TTE regarding the injury to a passenger in the Train No.12602 on 14.03.2023. In this report, the TTE has stated that on 14.03.2023, during the course of her checking, a reserved passenger came and reported that the window shutter fell on another passenger’s hand in S6 coach and she immediately rushed to the S6 coach and attended the traveller.
10. So, from Ext.B1 itself, it is clear that the injury to the complainant had caused due to the shutter fall. Point No.2 is found in favour of the complainant.
11. Point No.3
The opposite party’s main contention is that the complainant was an unreserved passenger in Train No.12602 and the accident occurred in a reserved compartment. So, the complainant has violated Section 155 of the Railway Act. The complainant entered the reserved coach without any up gradation of the same and the TTE denied his entry into the coach and he entered there without the knowledge of the TTE.
But the complainant has denied this in his affidavit and stated that he travelled in an unreserved compartment where he got a seat and the accident occurred there. Thereafter, he went in search of the TTE to report about this incident and found her in a reserved coach.
12. In Ext.B1, the TTE has stated that injured person was in possession of unreserved ticket and he was denied up gradation in SL coach for want of accommodation and he reboarded there without the knowledge of TTE. As per Section 155 of the Railway Act (1) if any passenger a) having entered a compartment wherein no berth or seat has been reserved by the railway administration for his use or b) having unauthorisedly occupied a berth or seat reserved by a railway administration for the use of another passenger, refuses to leave it when required to do so by any railway servant authorised in this behalf, such railway servant may remove him or cause him to be removed with the aid of any other person, from the compartment, berth or seat, as the case may be and he shall also be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.” The violation of Section 155 of the Railways Act provides an entirely different remedy.
13. As per Ext.B1, it is clear that the accident occurred due to window shutter fall in complainant’s hand. Even if the complainant is an unauthorised passenger, he cannot be denied justice only because of that. Further, the opposite party did not take any steps to cross examine the complaint in order to prove their contention. Since the complainant had stated that he travelled in an unreserved compartment, the opposite party is bound to disprove it. Even assuming that the complainant had travelled in a coach in which he was not entitled to travel, the basic question pertains not of the legality or illegality of the status of complainant as a passenger. Such a ground cannot be a defence in a matter where the complainant is a beneficiary of service provided by the opposite party.
14. As per opposite party’s version, all the coaches of Train NO.12602 are fitted with modified gravity shutter safety double catch” which prevents the free fall of shutter. It is a fool proof system and any failure of double catch will only be due to physical damage or any negligence of the complainant by deliberately uplifting the stopper duly causing the shutter fall. They produced the records of regular maintenance which were marked as Exts.B2(1) and (2) and Ext.B3 and the inspection report after inspecting the coaches on receiving the complaint is marked as Ext.B4. As per these reports, all the locking arrangements of all coaches were found in tact.
15. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the complainant or it is due to the improper locking system is not proved. Since the opposite party had taken the defence that all locking arrangements were intact and the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the complainant, the burden is on them to prove. But the opposite party failed to prove this by adducing evidence. There was admission from the staff of the opposite party that accident occurred due to shutter fall. In the absence of any cogent evidence, We cannot conclude that the accident occurred solely due to the complainant’s negligence. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Since the complainant suffered mental agony due to this, the opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant.
Admittedly, the wound was not a major one, but one that warranted treatment in a Primary Health Centre alone. So, We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the injury caused to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof, from the date of the order, till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 10th day of September, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
VIDYA A., MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: OP ticket taken from Primary Health Centre, Nenmara.
Ext.A2: Train ticket dated 14.03.2023 showing his travel from Kanjangad to Palakkad.
Ext.A3: photographs showing the injury on the finger tip (It is objected as it is a copy of copy and can be marked only through the author). Ext.A4: photograph showing the picture of the shutter.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party:
Ext.B1: Statement of TTE in charge Sheena K dated 13.07.2023.
Ext.B2: Statement of M.Kumaran on general inspection of the coach on 12.03.2023 along with the work chart.
Ext.B3: Work chart of Adarsh Y on general inspection of the coach on 16.03.2023.
Ext.B4: Statement of Nithin K L on inspection of the train on 14.03.2023 along with the work chart
Document marked from the side of Court: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 5,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
