J.K. JAIN vs Station Master, Northern Railway And Ors.

ON 27.11.2002, at about 5.30 a.m. accompanied by two persons, including his brother, the Complainant, practicing as a Homeopathic Doctor, went to Saharanpur Railway Station, U.P. to catch the train for travel to Baraut, District Muzaffarnagar. On boarding the train, in order to have some air and light, when he tried to open the iron shutter, the glass shutter behind it, dropped on his right hand, causing grievous injuries to his index and middle fingers, which started bleeding. Since no medical aid was available in the train or at the station, his brother took him to a nearby orthopedic and fracture clinic for treatment. X -ray of the injured fingers revealed fracture, for which necessary treatment was given. Immediately after the treatment, his brother went back to the station and lodged in the Complaint Register, a complaint about the poor maintenance of the train coach and for award of adequate compensation for the injuries suffered by his brother. According to the Complainant, even after full course of treatment, for about four weeks, the injured fingers became numb forever. On persistent enquiry from the Station Master on the action taken on his complaint, vide letter dated 22.01.2003, DRM (Commercial), Northern Railway, Ambala informed the brother of the Complainant that his complaint had been forwarded to the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi for proper action and he would be getting reply directly from the said office.

HAVING failed to get his grievance redressed by the Railways, left with no alternative, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Saharanpur (for short "the District Forum"), under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), praying for a direction to the Respondents to pay to him a total sum of 2,15,861/ -, i.e. 8861/ - on account of medical expenses; 2,00,000/ - as compensation for mental agony; and 7,000/ - as litigation expenses. The complaint was contested by the Railways on diverse grounds, including its maintainability, as being barred under Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. On merits, it was, inter alia, averred that the Complainant had not filed any document to show that he was a Homeopathic Doctor; the story of having purchased tickets for travel and his having sustained the injuries on the fingers was all false and self -made; the spring lever installed for holding the glass shutter was in order; had the Complainant informed the Guard and the Station Master about his injury, either they would have immediately provided the first aid or called a Doctor and since it was not done, no allegation of deficiency in service could be levelled against the Railways. It was pleaded that if at all the Complainant had suffered any injury, it was due to his own carelessness.

ON consideration of the evidence adduced before it, vide order dated 16.11.2006, the District Forum held that the Complainant did suffer the stated injuries because of poor maintenance of the glass shutter and hence, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railways. Accordingly, referring to an order passed by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in General Manager, Central Railway & Ors. v. S.S. Pillai, I, (2002) CPJ 24, and relying on Notification No. dated 25.10.1997, whereby Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990 (for short "the 1990 Rules") and Schedule thereto were amended, enhancing compensation under item No. 9 from 40,000/ - to 80,000/ -, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Railways to pay to the Complainant a sum of 80,000/ - as compensation along with a sum of 2000/ - as litigation expenses, with a default stipulation of interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount.

BEING aggrieved, the Railways and its functionaries, chose to challenge the said order by invoking the Revisional as well as the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission"). In the first place, a Revision Petition, being RP No. 2 of 2006, was filed, raising the ground that since the compensation had been claimed on account of an accident, as per Section 24A of the Railway Act, 1989, such a claim could be made only before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 13(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and therefore, the complaint under the Act was not maintainable. Simultaneously, an Appeal, being No. 3213 of 2006, challenging the said order on merits was filed. It was reiterated that there was no evidence before the District Forum in arriving at the conclusion that the window, near the seat, occupied by the Complainant was not properly maintained or that there was some mechanical defect in its operation. Rejecting the objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint under the Act, the State Commission has held that the complaint, filed for award of compensation on account of deficiency in service, was maintainable. Nevertheless, on reappraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, the State Commission came to the conclusion that it was for the Complainant to prove that he had suffered injuries on the right hand fingers on 27.11.2002 and that his brother had lodged the complaint in the Complaint Register on the same day but having failed to file affidavit of some co -passengers he had failed to prove that the window spring was defective and the glass shutter had dropped on his fingers due to movement of the train. Also observing that first aid facilities are generally available with the Guard and the Station Master and, in case of need, the Doctors are called, and the fact that as per the medical papers, there was a gap of about four hours between the time of incident and the treatment, raised a suspicion about the incident, the State Commission allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Complaint. The Revision Petition questioning the maintainability of the complaint under the Act was also dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order, the Complainant is before us in this Revision Petition. Mr. Nikhil Jain, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in light of an overwhelming evidence on record, viz. certificate dated 27.08.2005 issued by the Medical Superintendent of the Northern Railway Hospital, certifying the nature of the injuries on the two fingers and the line of treatment received by the Complainant; acknowledgement of the Written Complaint made by the brother of the Complainant by the Station Master; certificate dated 01.03.2006 issued by the treating surgeon and the prescriptions for the treatment taken by the Complainant for over four weeks, the State Commission committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that the Complainant had failed to prove his allegation of deficiency in maintenance of its passenger coach by the Railways, which resulted in permanent damage to two fingers on the right hand of the Complainant and that the incident itself was suspicious.

HAVING perused the documents on record, we find substance in the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the Complainant. We are convinced that the Complainant, a practicing Homeopathic Doctor, would not indulge in self -infliction of the stated injury in order to level allegation of poor maintenance by the Railways to claim a petty compensation from them at the cost of his time and energy. We are satisfied that the Complainant did sustain the stated injuries on his fingers. Lodging of complaint about the incident is not disputed by the Station Master. Rather, it was acknowledged and sent to the Competent Authority for proper action. There is nothing on record to show as to what final action was taken by the Competent Authority on the said complaint. As a matter of fact, inaction on the part of functionaries of the Railways on such complaints by itself amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Maintenance of Complaints Register by any public Authority is not a formality. What is reported in these registers are required to be acted upon and grievances, if any, are to be redressed. In our view, on facts at hand, the State Commission has erred in exonerating the Railways of the allegation of deficiency in their part on account of lack of proper upkeep of the passenger coaches.

THAT takes us to the question of compensation, which could be awarded to the Complainant for the suffering he has undergone on account of the stated deficiency on the part of the Railways. It is trite that the word ''compensation'' is of very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. {See: GDA v. Balbir Singh : (2004) 5 SCC 65}. As noted above, in the present case, for awarding compensation of 80,000/ - to the Complainant, the District Forum had relied upon Notification dated 25.10.1997, issued by the Ministry of Railways, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 129 of the Railways Act, 1989. In the said Notification, at item No. 9 of the Schedule, a compensation of 80,000/ - has been prescribed for loss of two fingers of one hand. Although permanent numbness of two functional fingers, in certain situations, may be as bad as losing the fingers, yet in the present case, having regard to the medical prescriptions and certificate issued by the Railway Hospital on record, we find it difficult to hold that Complainants'' case would strictly fall under item No. 9 of the Schedule. Therefore, in our opinion, reasonable and adequate compensation has to be determined as contemplated in para (3) of the said notification which read as follows: - -

"(3) The amount of compensation payable in respect of any injury (other than an injury specified in the Schedule or referred to in sub -rule (2) resulting in pain and suffering shall be such as the Claims Tribunal may after taking into consideration medical evidence, besides other circumstances of the case, determine to be reasonable.

Provided that if more than one injury is caused by the same accident, compensation shall be payable in respect of each such injury.

Provided further that the total compensation in respect of all such injuries shall not exceed rupees eighty thousand."

HAVING regard to the surrounding circumstances of the case, which include the expenditure incurred on treatment for the injuries, in our opinion, award of a lump sum amount of 50,000/ - in favour of the Complainant, as compensation, would be just and equitable. Resultantly, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the Railways to pay to the Complainant, as compensation, a sum of 50,000/ -, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till actual realization. There will, however, no order as to costs.