SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

   This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for seeking  to get an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant on account of treatment expenses, amount  paid to by stander, loss of income due to the injury and for compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party

The brief facts  of the case are that on  27/7/2017  the complainant was travelled from Payyanur to  Mangalore and for returned to Payyanur at about 12.p.m when the  complainant was in the queue in the ticket counter in Mangalore central railway station in order to collect train  ticket to  Kannur by train No.12602, the concrete block from the ceiling from the railway station happened to fall on the head of the complainant and he sustained injury.  Further after sustaining injuries  the complainant was taken to Wenlock Hospital and from there he was referred to Fr.Mullers Hospital,Mangalore and after treatment discharged  on 30/7/2017 even now continuing treatment due to the injury to head removal of hairs skill soft tissue was done and the complainant was spend Rs.50000/- for the treatment expenses and Rs.10,000/-  for the bystander still the complainant is undergoing treatment and sustained a loss of income of Rs.80,000/-. Due to the injury total disfiguration  was  occurred and the compensation for  mental  agony pain  and transportation total Rs.3,50,00/- the complainant is entitled  from the OP.  Hence the complaint

   Opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant.  OP admitted the averment in the complaint that the complainant had travelled from Payyanur to  Mangalore and for returned to Payyanur at about 12.p.m when the  complainant was in the queue in the ticket counter in Mangalore central railway station in order to collect train  ticket to  Kannur by train No.12602, the concrete block from the ceiling from the railway station happened to fall on the head of the complainant and he sustained injury that after sustaining injuries  the complainant was taken to Wenlock Hospital and from there he was referred to Fr.Mullers Hospital,Mangalore and discharged  on 30/7/2017.The OP submits that on 27/7/2017 at about 12.00 hrs at Mangalore central railway station concourse area an unfortunate incident of falling a small ceiling portion of the roof slab was occurred.  That the incident was accidental and could not be foreseen.  Due to incident the complainant got injured on his head and he was immediately taken to Wenlock hospital and required treatment was initiated there without delay.  OP further stated that the said station is an old  building. The maintenance of the building is being done by Senior Section Engineer/works/Mangalore, during his routine monthly inspection on 21//7/2017 noticed no discrepancy and also there was no sign of crack or bulging in the portion of the ceiling which was fallen down. The station building is situated very near to seashore.  As sea is very near to the Mangalore central station building the corrosion percentage of the reinforcement under the ceiling which could not be seen outside of the ceiling of RCC roof slab without any prior warning like crack or bulging etc.  The incident was most unfortunate and  beyond control and unexpected. However  after the incident the structural repair work of the station building was undertaken by railway so  as to avoid recurrence of such incidents and to ensure safety of passengers. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence complainant is not  entitled to get any relief from opposite party and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

   Complainant has filed his  affidavit on evidence and marked Exts.A1 to A8.  He was subjected to cross-examine for the OP.  On behalf of OP Senior Section Engineer at Southern Railway Mangalapuram Mr.Muhazin P.P has filed affidavit and marked Ext.B1 series.  He has been subjected to cross-examine for the complainant.  After that the learned counsels of complainant and OP filed their written argument notes.

   We have gone  through the evidence on record and considered the submission of learned counsels.  Learned counsel of OP stated  that the witness of OP(DW1) was not specifically cross-examined by the complainant’s side.  There was no cross-examination to the  point that due to the carelessness or due to the negligent act of the railways, the accident occurred.  Further, submitted that there was also no cross-examination to the effect that the railway has not taken any possible steps like periodical inspection to avoid such an unfortunate event.  OP produced attested copy of periodical inspection details and marked as Ext.B1 series.

   The admitted facts in the instant case are on 27/7/2017 at 12.p.m when the  complainant was in the queue in the ticket counter in Mangalore central railway station to purchase ticket to  Kannur by train No.12602, the concrete block from the ceiling from the railway station happened to fall on the head of the complainant and he sustained injury.  Further after sustaining injuries  the complainant was taken to Wenlock Hospital and from there he was referred to Fr.Mullers Hospital, Mangalore and after treatment discharged  on 30/7/2017.  Further there is no dispute that all the treatment expenses of the complainant was incurred by himself.

   OP contended that the OP had conducted routine monthly inspection at the station on 13/7/2017 noticed no discrepancy and also there was no sign of crack or bulging in the portion of the ceiling which was fallen down.  In fact, OP himself has conceded there the unfortunate incident as alleged by the complainant was happened and due to the incident complainant got head injury.  Further pleaded that the station building is situated very near to seashore.  As sea is very near to the Mangalore central station building, the corrosion percentage of the reinforcement under the ceiling which could not be seen outside of the ceiling of RCC roof slab without any prior warning like crack or bulging.  Hence accident was happened beyond their control and unexpected.  Further the defence taken by the OP is that the Railway had take all possible steps like monthly inspection etc on their side and on inspection on 21//7/2017 noticed no discrepancy and also there was no sign of crack or bulging in the portion of the ceiling which was fallen down.  On perusal of Ext.B1, we can see that on 21/7/2017 special and  Zonal work was going on, which means the contention of the OP that prior to the accident there was no sign of crack or bulging found on inspection is not correct.  OP further conceded that the opposite party, Mangalore Central railway station is an old building and situated very near to seashore and the incident was most unfortunate and beyond their control.  In such a situation ie, having suspicion about accident OP should have more careful to avoid accident happened to passengers at the railway station.  Here OP has not been proved through credible evidence to show that OP had taken sufficient precautionary steps to avoid  unexpected  accident to the passengers.  Hence we are of the view that the accident happened to the complainant is due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Further OP did not even cared to meet the treatment  expense of the complainant incurred due to  injury happened  on him at OP’s premises.  That also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence complainant is entitled to get relief from opposite party.

   Here complainant produced the discharge summary dtd.30/7/2017 issued by Fr.Muller’s Medical college Mangalore, OP records issued by Pariyaram Medical College dtd.7/8/2017, Discharge bill and cash bills from Fr.Muller Hospital and cash bills from Pariyaram Medical college.  The exhibits show that complainant availed treatment for the  wound over the scalp due to fall of a slab piece to head.  However there is no evidence available before us that he is still continuing treatment and disability happened due to the injury.  Further no evidence produced that he is a driver in profession and due to the accident sustained a loss of income of Rs.80,000/-.

       Considering all facts stated above, we are of the view that complaint is to be allowed.  Opposite party  is directed to give Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the head injury happened to him and also the

treatment expenses incurred to him, within one month from the date of receipt of  the order.  Failing which Rs.1,00,000/- carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Opposite party is also directed to give Rs.10,000/- as cost to the proceeding of this case.  Complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite party under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for realization of the awarded amount.

Exts:

A1-F.I.R

A2-Translated FIR

A3-Discharge summary from Fr.Mullers Hospital

A4-Medical certificate issued by Pariyaram Medical College dtd.7/8/2017

A5-Discharge bill issued by Fr.mullers Hospital dtd.30/7/2017

A6-Treatment certificate issued by PHC Naduvil (op ticket)dtd.1/8/2017

A7 series- Medical bills(9 in Nos.)

A8-Photos&CD

B1 series-copy of periodical inspection details

PW1-Biju Mathew-complainant

DW1-Muhazin.P.P-OP

    Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                                  Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                         MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                            Sajeesh K.P

 eva                                              

                                                          /forwarded by Order/

                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR