DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

1.      This complainant’s son, Shri Ashutosh Kaushik (since deceased), a student of polytechnic college, was a football player.  On 28.05.2015, around 1.30 p.m., he left the home for Ambedkar Stadium for playing football.  He did not return back by the night, therefore, the complainant made search of him, inquired with his relatives and friends as well as authorities of Ambedkar Stadium.  Afterwards, the complainant lodged a complaint with police station, Shahdara on 29.05.2015, as a missing person report.  The dead body of his son was located by GRP on the railway track between Bhad bhada and Diwan Ganj Railway Station at KM No. 855-20-28.  It was informed to the football association and subsequently to the complainant.  The complainant collected the body of his deceased son and performed last rites on 2.6.2015.  A copy of GRP report (annexure A-3).

2.      It is alleged that at the time of said accident, the deceased was travelling with valid second class ticket from New Delhi.  The ticket was issued by Northern Railway (OP), therefore, he was a bona fide consumer of OP.  The true copy of railway ticket is annexure A-4.  GRP and Post Mortem (PM) report confirmed that the death was because of train accident.  It is further alleged that the CCTV cameras installed at New Delhi Railway Station were not working properly on 28.5.2015.  The PM was performed on 30.5.2015 at 12.00 p.m. and as per the report, the person died between 24-36 hours.  Therefore, nothing was mentioned about immediate death after sustaining injuries by accident.  Thus, the pathetic and over crowded condition of the unreserved second class coach may also be acted as a catalyst in the said accident.  The railway police and railway protection force are liable for the lapses in safety and security of the passengers, as they failed to perform their duty.  It was the duty of railway department to make safe and secure arrangement for the travelling passengers.  The train ticket was never checked during the length of journey.  Hence, it was also a negligence on the part of TTE.  There were several lapses in the duty of gangman, engine driver and the guard.  They have not informed the nearest station about the accident.  Many trains were passed over up as well as down track  but none have informed the railway authorities about said accident.  It was only the goods train driver who informed the railway officers of the station on 29.5.2015 at 4.40 p.m. but the GRP was informed at 6.30 p.m. on the same day, who reached the spot of accident at 7.35 p.m.  Hence, such delay has caused death of his son. 

3.      As per complainant, after purchasing railway ticket, the passenger becomes a consumer and entitled to file complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The negligence and deficiency in service by the Railway is a serious issue, hence, the principle of res-ipsa loquitter is applicable in this case.  The complainant filed this complaint for the deficiency in service as well as culpable negligence on the part of OPs and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,32,00,000/- on various grounds. 

4.      Heard learned counsel for the complainant at the admission stage. He narrated the facts mentioned in the complaint.    The counsel has referred two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of P.A. Naravanan Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 67  and Sumatidevi  M. Dhanwatay vs. Union of India and Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 113.  In both the cases, the facts are related to the theft of the belongings of the travelling passengers.  He also relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shiv Devi Agarwal & Anr. I (2010) CPJ 170 (NC) wherein it was alleged that the incident/accident was due to sub-standard material and improper maintenance of hydrant (drinking water booth) constructed by Railway.  Therefore, the facts are altogether different from the instant case. 

5.      The stand of the complainant to the effect that the OP by failing to ensure the safety of his son, who was travelling in second class unreserved compartment, has committed deficiency in service, therefore, OP is liable to compensate the complainant.  I   disagree with the aforesaid contention for the reason that, but for the fact, the dead body of the complainant’s son was found at the railway track, there is nothing in the complaint to suggest as to under what circumstances, the son of the complainant fell from the train.  There is probability that he might have also committed suicide. In absence of any cogent  evidence or the averment in the complaint about the circumstances under which the dead body of son of complainant came to be at the railway tract, it cannot be said that complaint discloses a cause of action.   The complaint is thus liable to be rejected.  Otherwise also, the claim of complainant is that, his son died due to fall from the ongoing train, therefore, his remedy lies under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

          In view of the above, the complaint is rejected with liberty to the complainant to approach Railway Claims Tribunal, as per law.