BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : PRESIDENT (I/C)
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 14/2017 Filed on 10.01.2017
ORDER DATED: 30.06.2020
Complainant:
M.Balan, T.C. 5/533, ‘Tripti’ Neethi nagar -174, Peroorkada.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 005.
(By Adv. K.G.Eappen)
Opposite party:
1.Chief Claim Officer, Southern Railway, Head Quarters Office,
Chennai -3.
2.Sr.District Commercial Manager, Commercial Branch,
Divisional Office, Thiruvananthapuram – 69501.
3.Adl. Registrar, Railway claims Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench,
Thottat House, Durbar Hall Road, Ernakulam – 682 016.
(By Adv. Ranganathan)
The order delivered on 30/06/2020
ORDER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
The complainant has presented this complaint before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant was travelling along with his wife Rema Balan (both Senior Citizens) in train No. 16346 on 14/10/2016 from Thiruvanathapuram to Aluva. His ticket number was 316054217 which was verified by the concerned TTE noting his PAN card number in the ticket and side birth seat number 31 was allotted in B-5 coach. Opposite seat was vacant. While sitting and travelling in this seat, in between Ambalapuzha and Alapuzha stations, the heavy back rest of the opposite seat fell very forcefully like a hammering blow on the both legs causing severe wounds by the steel strap of the bottom edge of the Back rest on the both knee cap sides, which caused heavy bleeding and severe pain. On examination, it was noticed that the lock pin of the back rest was very loose and always coming up and hence the back rest was resting in the vertical position unlocked. That was the reason for falling this, on the legs. This was happened only due to the negligence and lack of inspection and proper maintenance by concerned Railway personnel who are responsible for the safety and security of passengers. The TTE personally has seen the complainant after this accident and the petitioner found him noting the same in his record. He advised to contact Ernakulam South Railway Station for arranging the Railway duty doctor to examine him while reaching there. Accordingly arrangement was made. The duty doctor with assistants came to his seat in B5 coach at Ernakulam South Railway Station. Wounds were cleaned and proper dressing the wounds on both legs was done. Also gave some pain relieving tablets for immediate relief. He contacted the Aluva Station master for arranging a wheel chair to take the complainant out from the train.
He also advised the complainant to restrict knee cap and joint movements of the legs till an X-ray is taken and reviewed the condition.
The complainant was taken out from the train in a wheel chair at Aluva Station. A complaint was registered in the Register kept in the Aluva Station. Immediately the petitioner was taken to the nearby Hospital which was C.A.Hospital OP ticket was taken to see the Ortho specialist, X-ray was taken and examined the same. No severe fracture was noticed inspite of such a severe blow by the heavy back rest. But tenderness, swelling and restriction in range of movements of legs were observed. Some pain relief tablets and antibiotics were prescribed and advised two weeks complete rest. Also informed that pain and restriction of movement of legs may continue for more days. The complainant is still suffering pain during walking and Ayurvedic oil massaging is being done every day.
The complainant is a senior citizen. The complainant submitted a complaint petition explaining everything in details to the divisional Manager, Thiruvananthapuram on 03/11/2016 and requested compensation for the accident and maintenance of his health after the injury. The complainant was informed from the Divisional Office that copies have been forwarded to the Chief Claim Officer, Chennai and Mechanical Branch for information and necessary action. Even after two months no further information received from any responsible officer.
Since it is understood that compensation is being sanctioned in similar cases by the Railway Claim Tribunal, the complainant filed a claim on 21/11/2016 in the proper form to the Railway claim Tribunal Ernakulam Bench. But the Additional Registrar, without placing before the Bench, has declined and returned the claim with following remarks. “Claim is not maintainable in this Tribunal as the alleged injury due to falling off the side seat (opposite to the applicant’s seat) of the train on applicant’s knees while travelling in train, does not come under the preview of section 124 or 123© ‘untoward incident’ of Railway Act 1989.’ Hence this complaint.
The opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version. The opposite parties 1 to 3 averred that while the complainant was travelling in seat No.31 of train number 16346 on 14/10/2016, in between Ambalapuzha and Alappuzha stations, the heavy backrest of the opposite seat fell forcibly over both his legs causing “severe Wounds” on his knee caps resulting in “heavy bleeding and severe pain”. The complainant further alleges that the lock pin of the backrest of to his opposite seat was very loose and was always coming up and hence the backrest which was in the vertical position unlocked and resulted in the fall of the backrest over his legs. The allegation by the complainant that the above mentioned incident happened only due to the negligence by concerned railway officials is false and hence denied.
The train No.16345/46, Thiruvananthapuram – Kurla Nethravathy Express is primarily maintained before the incident on 13/14 - 10.16, nigh duty just before the journey of the complainant. As per the maintenance register available at the coaching depot, the coach included No.SR ACCN 12108 of 16346 Express was examined and attended in all respect and certified fit for service on 13/14 10.16 before the incident. On arrival of the rake of 16345/46 on 17/10/2016, the same coach was examined on 17/18 - 10.16 night duty and no defect was found in the lock of the back rest or the rest itself of seat Nos. 31 and 32 by the Mechanical Department of TVC depot. No work was executed with respect to those seats as they were in good working condition. Moreover the same coach was in service continuously on the same formation without any defect to the seat back rest. The entire formation including side sear No.32 of B5 coach SR ACCN 12108 was examined on 17/10/2016 and notice4d there was no complaint. Form the above it is evident that some passenger has not ensured the proper locking of the back seat latch of seat No.31/32 of SR ACCN 12108. Thus when the complainant was seated there in, the backrest of opposite sear, being unsecure due to improper locking, might have fallen over the knees of the petitioner. The complainant was travelling from TVM to Aluva. He has alleged that the lock pin of the back rest was very loose and always coming up. It is to be noted that if the lock pin was very loose as alleged and was always coming up it would have fallen many times during the course of complainant’s journey from Thiruvananthapuram to Aluva. But it has fallen only once during the course of his journey. This further strengthens the assumption that the lock pin was not properly secured by some passengers which might be the reason for the unfortunate accident alleged to be sustained by the complainant. There was not negligence or lack of inspection and maintenance on the part of the Railways.
The complainant given to the Divisional Manager dated 03/11/2016 that the incident caused “severe cuts above both knee caps and stated bleeding”. But on perusal of the examination report of doctor of CA hospital, Aluva dated 16/10/2016, it can be seen that there was only “tenderness and swelling over both knees and mild restriction in the range of movement” due to accident. It mentions no cuts or bruises and bleeding. There by proving that the complainant has ultimate malafides in filing the complaint. He has falsely alleged about the nature of the wound that it resulted in severe bleeding whereas the doctor’s report is showing just tenderness and swelling only.
The accident might have occurred as a result of not properly locking the backrest of the seat by the passenger who used that seat earlier. The complainant is putting the blame to these opposite parties for the negligence of some co passenger and that of himself. Railway cannot ensure during journey whether passengers are locking the backrest of the seat properly of not. As from the records maintained by the maintenance division of the railways, there was not fault with respect to the lock pin of the back rust of Seat No. 31 or 32.
The complaint is filed experimentally with the malafide intention for achieving illegal gain.
The complaint being a false and frivolous and vexatious one be dismissed with the costs and the compensatory costs to the opposite parties.
Issues to be ascertained:
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
Issues (i) & (ii): Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed chief affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1 has produced 13 documents which were marked as Ext. P1 to P13. He was cross examined by Opposite parties 1to 3. Even though opposite parties 1 to 3 filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination, the complainant submitted that they have no cross examination. The complainant and opposite parties 1to 3 filed A/N. From Ext.P2 (series) and P4 it can be seen that the complainant was travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Aluva in train no.16346 and sustained injuries due to the fall of the back rest of the opposite seat. The opposite parties 1 to 3 raised the contention that they have primarily maintained the train no.16345/46 before the incident.
On 13/14 -10.16 night duty just before the journey of the complainant as per the maintenance register the coach No.SR ACCN 12108 of 16346 express was examined and attended in all respect and certified fit for service on 13/14 10.16 before the incident. The same coach was examined on 17/10/2016, but no defect was found in the lock of the backrest of seat nos. 31 and 32.
Even though the opposite parties 1 to 3 vehemently stick on the contention that there is no defect in the lock of the back rest they have not produced the maintenance register to show that they have maintained the lock without any defects. But without producing maintenance register it cannot be relied that the lock of the back rest was properly maintained by opposite parties1 to 3.
Even though the complainant raised the contention that due to the fall of the backrest he suffered heavy bleeding and severe pain. But as per Ext.P7 it can be seen that there was only tenderness and swelling over both knees and mild restriction in range of movement. But there was no fracture.
The opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to prove that they have maintained the lock of the back rest without any defect.
Hence we find that the complaint has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 to 3. Hence the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the physical injury and mental agony and pay Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the proceeding with in one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 8% per annum from the date of default till realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of June 2020.
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : PRESIDENT (I/C)
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
R
C.C.No.14/2017
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 –M.Balan
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 -Copy of the petition submitted to the
Divisional Manager, Thiruvananthapuram.
P2 - Copy of the Railway tickets duly verified by
the TTE noting the PAN Number and seat Number.
P3 - Copy of the pan card.
P4 - copy of the complaint recorded in the Register at Aluva
Railway station.
P5 - Copy of the O.P ticket of C.A.Hospital, Aluva.
P6 -Copy of the X-rays taken.
P7 -Observation report of the Doctor in C.A.Hospital
P8 - Copy of the bill of C.A.Hospital
P9 -Copy of the discharge report dated 10/11/2015 in
S.K.Hospital
P10 -Copy of the forwarding letters from the Commercial
Branch, Divisional Office, Thiruvanathapuram to C.C.O
Chennai.
P11 - Copy of the forwarding letter from the public grievance
cell, Divisional Office, Thiruvananthapuram to the
mechanical Branch.
P12 -Copy of the claim submitted to railway claim Tribunal
duly acknowledged and returned.
P13 -Copy of the Adl. Registrar declining my claim without
presenting before the Bench.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT (I/C)
