Union of India vs Mohan Lal Gupta

MRS. Vineeta Rai, Member-Two cross-petitions (R.P. No. 2923 of 2006 and R.P. No. 2995 of 2006) have been filed against the order of the MP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1580 of 2004. Both cases came up for hearing today. Since despite two calls, none was present on behalf of the Petitioner-Union of India in Revision Petition No. 2923 of 2006, it is dismissed for non-prosecution. The present order, therefore, pertains to Revision Petition No. 2995 of 2006.

THE facts of the case are that one Dr. Mohan Lal Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioner'') had purchased a second-class train ticket from Indore to Mandsaur. According to the Petitioner, while he was trying to board the train on 29.1.2002 to go to Mandsaur, he fell down near the edge of the platform and the train compartment because the platform was dug up at several places in that area. As a result of this he sustained bilateral fracture of pubic rami (ramus). He was treated at Gokuldas Hospital, Indore from 29.1.2002 to 9.2.2002 and thereafter advised bed rest for three months. He continued to be under treatment till 29.9.2002 and even till date he has not recovered completely because the fracture has resulted, as certified by Dr. K.C. Shrimal, an orthopaedic surgeon, disability in his left leg upto 38% and in the right leg upto 13%. The Petitioner had to spend Rs. l lakh on his medical treatment and suffered additional monetary loss of Rs. 4,98,000 on account of loss of agricultural income, loss of income from business, miscellaneous expenses and because of his permanent disability. Since, the mishap occurred due to lack of proper maintenance of the platform by the Respondents resulting in the accident and subsequent treatment. Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on the grounds of deficiency in service and sought compensation amounting to Rs. 4,98,000.

THE Respondents totally denied the allegation that the platform was not properly maintained because of construction work and had thus become unsafe for passengers. According to the Respondents no construction work was going on at the place from where the Petitioner boarded the train and he fell down because of his own negligence since he had purchased the ticket at the last minute and was trying to board a moving train. The Respondents further stated that the photographs produced by the complainant showing the dug up platform were not of the day when the accident took place but of a subsequent period. Under the circumstances the Petitioner received injury because of his own negligence and not because of any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. The District Forum after hearing both parties accepted the complaint and directed the Respondents to pay the Petitioner the following compensation: (i) Rs. 30,000 spent on medical treatment; (ii) Rs. 1,20,000 on account of his disability which left him handicapped and dependent on others; (iii) Rs. 1,60,000 on account of losses in business; and (iv) Rs. 30,000 for mental agony and physical pain.

IN this way, the Petitioner was awarded a total amount of Rs. 3,40,000 which the Respondents were directed to pay jointly and severally as well as 9% interest on this amount from 29.1.2002. They were also directed to pay Rs. 1,000 as costs.

AGGRIEVED by this order the Respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission also concluded that there was enough evidential material to demonstrate that platform No. l at Indore Railway Station on the relevant date was dug up at various places making it inconvenient and dangerous for passengers to walk on the platform and board the train from there, resulting in the Petitioner falling down on the platform and sustaining serious injuries. This is further confirmed by the police report, photographs of the platform filed in evidence as well as medical certificates, etc. The State Commission did not agree with the Respondents'' contention that the case was barred by jurisdiction and could be tried only by the Railway Claims Tribunal because this plea had not been taken before the Fora below and also because when the Petitioner approached the Railway Claims Tribunal for compensation to the injuries sustained by him, Respondents had opposed the said claim and denied that it was an untoward incident covered under the Indian Railways Act. The State Commission, however, reduced the compensation awarded to the Petitioner by the District Forum from Rs. 3,40,000 to Rs. 70,000 with 9% interest from the date of complaint i.e. 14.11.2002 till date of payment as well as Rs. 1,000 as costs for the following reasons: "As regards the compensation, it was a non-fatal accident which has resulted only in causing partial permanent disability in both the lower limbs of the respondent and as certified by Dr. K.C. Shrimal, an orthopaedic surgeon, the disability in the left leg was to the extent of 38% and that in the right leg was 13% only. Certainly it is not a case where the respondent has been rendered wholly disabled for rest of his life. The respondent has claimed Rs. 1,00,000 towards medical expenses, but could furnish documents evidencing expenses of Rs. 13,330 only. In fact these expenses were of Gokuldas Hospital, Indore. May be that he was required to purchase some more medicines as stated in his discharge certificate. Taking a liberal view of the matter we may hold that he might have spent a total sum of Rs. 20,000 on his treatment. The respondent has claimed Rs. 1,20,000 for the deformity over and above a sum of Rs. 1,68,600 on the loss of agricultural income and Rs. 1,00,000 for the loss of business. However, no evidence is adduced by the respondent proving his income from the aforesaid two sources. In such a situation we may take add of the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing for computation of compensation in such a case of disability in non-fatal accident. Having regard to the age of advance age (65 years) of the respondent, the compensation awardable to the respondent can safely be computed at Rs. 50,000. He was thus entitled to a maximum sum of Rs. 70,000 from the appellant-Railways. The amount of Rs. 3,40,000 awarded by the Forum below thus needs to be reduced as accordingly."

AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

COUNSEL for the Petitioner made oral submissions. None was present on behalf of the Respondents.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

WE agree with the learned Fora below that the mishap to the Petitioner occurred because the concerned railway platform was dug up making it inconvenient as well as dangerous for passengers to walk on the platform and board the train because there was a strong possibility of their falling down. The contention of the Respondent that the photographs could not be relied upon as being of the date of the accident also does not appear to be credible, because of supporting evidence including the police report and the statement of witnesses who have confirmed that parts of the platform were dug up and that work was going on in that area. On the other hand, Respondents have not produced any tangible evidence to the contrary. The Railways being a major public utility service are duty bound to ensure the safety of passengers not only within the trains but also within the property belonging to and maintained by them. They are, therefore, liable to compensate the Petitioner for injuries suffered by him on the railway platform which was directly attributable to the deficiency in service on Respondents'' part. Regarding the reduction in the amount of compensation by the State Commission, after going through the relevant documents, we note that the Petitioner apart from spending money on his treatment at Gokuldas Hospital had also spent Rs. 41,000 at the Choithram Hospitals and Research Centre as a part of his treatment on 19.9.2003. The State Commission has computed the medical expenditure to be about Rs. 20,000. We, however, feel that Rs. 60,000 would be a more realistic amount keeping in view the documentary evidence on record from the two hospitals. In addition to this, it has been certified by a medical expert i.e. an orthopaedic surgeon Dr. K.C. Shrimal, that the Petitioner because of this accident has suffered permanent disability in the left leg upto 38% and in the right leg upto 13% which keeping in view his age and the nature of his disability would justifiably need to be compensated. We are of the view that an amount of Rs. 60,000 would be fair and reasonable compensation in respect of this disability. Petitioner has not produced any documentary and other evidence to indicate actual loss of income or business that he has suffered and we agree with the State Commission that in the absence of this, compensation on this account is not justified.

KEEPING in view the above facts, we modify the order of the State Commission and enhance the compensation amount to Rs. 1,20,000 which will also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 14.11.2002 till its payment within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of this order. A further amount of Rs. 1,000 shall be paid by the Respondents to the Petitioner towards costs.