Judgment:
A.N. Chaturvedi, President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.3.1995 passed by the District Forum, Muzaffarpur in complaint Case No. 884/94. By the impugned order the District Forum directed for payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lacs) by the opposite party (appellant in this appeal) to the complainant (respondent in this appeal) by way of compensation and Rs. 1,100/- (Rs. One thousand one hundred) as cost.
2. The case of the complainant (respondent) in his complaint petition was that on 19.1.1993 he was travelling from Muzaffarpur Railway Station to Turkey Railway Station by 527 Up train after purchasing ticket No. 47729. When the said train reached Turkey Railway Station there was no light at the station. While he (complainant) was alighting from the train, it took off without blowing any whistle as a result of which he fell down from the train and his both the legs were chopped off by the wheels of the train. It so happened due to negligence and carelessness on the part of railway administration which amounted to deficiency in service. Due to this accident he (complainant) has become a disabled person and is not in a position to do anything. He gave notice under Section 78(B) of the Indian Railways Act to the Railway but the Commercial Superintendent did not do anything in the matter which led to the filing of the complaint case before the District Forum claiming Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lakhs) as compensation.
3. The opposite party (appellant) entered appearance before the District Forum, filed written statement and contested the case. The case of the opposite party (appellant) in the written statement was that on 19.1.1994 the complainant (respondent) was travelling in the said train No. 527 Up without proper ticket. Ticket No. 47729 which the complainant claimed to have purchased from Muzaffarpur booking office on 19.1.1993 and which was found to be in his possession had already been sold from the said booking office on 16.1.1993. The accident in which the complainant's legs were amputated took place due to the negligence, fault and hasty alightment of the complainant himself from the said train being unauthorised passenger possessing improper ticket. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the railway administration in causing injury to the complainant. There was contradiction with regard to claim of compensation made in the complaint petition and that made in the notice under Section 78(B) of the Indian Railways Act sent by the complainant to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur- It was also the case of the opposite party (appellant) that the complainant had got no cause of action to file the complaint case against the opposite party and the complaint petition was fit to be dismissed with cost.
4. At the time of hearing of this appeal no one appeared on behalf of the appellant to argue his case. The learned Counsel for the respondent argued the case of the complainant (respondent) at the time of hearing of the appeal.
5. Certain facts arc not disputed. It is not disputed that complainant (respondent) Ram Pravesh Singh was travelling by passenger train No. 527 Up on 19.1.1993. It is also not disputed that ticket No. 47729 from Muzaffarpur to Turkey was found in possession of the complainant. It is also not disputed that the complainant Ram Pravesh Singh while alighting from the train at Turkey Railway Station fell down and both of his legs were chopped off by the wheels of the train. According to the complainant the accident occurred due to two reasons â firstly due to darkness at Turkey Railway Station and secondly due to starting of the train without blowing any Whistle. The fact that at the time of arrival of the said train there was darkness at Turkey Railway Station has not been specifically denied in the written statement. Moreover this fact is also apparent from the report dated 10.10.1994 of the Area Officer, Muzaffarpur brought on record by the opposite party (appellant). The fact that the said train took off from Turkey Railway Station without blowing whistle has also not been specifically denied in the written statement of the opposite party (appellant). But it has been alleged that the complainant was travelling without proper ticket and the accident took place due to the negligence, fault and hasty alightment of the complainant from the train. According to the opposite party (appellant) ticket No. 47729 claimed to have been purchased by the complainant on 19.1.1993 from Muzaffarpur railway booking office had already been sold from the said booking office on 16.1.1993 and hence there was no question of sale of the said ticket on 19.1.1993.
6. Both the parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. The complainant has brought on record two affidavits of his own. Apart from that he has brought on record the affidavits of Siya Sharan Singh, Binay Kumar Jha, Ram Gati Choudhary and Manoj Kumar Singh. In his own affidavit dated 2.12.1994 complainant Ram Pravesh Singh has supported his case by stating that on 19.1.1993 he purchased ticket No. 47729 from booking counter of Muzaffarpur Railway Station for journey from Muzaffarpur to Turkey Railway Station. In his other affidavit which is dated 23.8.1994 he has supported his case as alleged in the complaint petition. Siya Sharan Singh and Binay Kumar Jha in their affidavits have stated to the effect that on 19.1.1993 they had travelled from Muzaffarpur Railway Station to Turkey Railway Station by train No. 527 Up. They have further stated to the effect that on 19.1.1993 complainant Ram Pravesh Singh had also purchased ticket for going to Turkey Railway Station from booking counter of Muzaffarpur Railway Station in their presence and at that very time they had also purchased tickets. As against this, the opposite party appellant has examined Mudit Kumar Sinha, Chief Commercial Clerk, Muzaffarpur as O.P.W. No. 1 to say that on 16.1.1993 he was posted in booking office at Muzaffarpur and his duty was from 4 p.m. to 12 in the night. He had further stated that he had sold ticket No. 47729 on 16.1.1993 which was for travel from Muzaffarpur to Turkey Railway Station. He has further stated that Coaching Superintendent had issued a letter with regard to said ticket on the basis of cash- book in which sold ticket Nos. are noted and the said letter was attested by Regional Officer, Muzaffarpur. O.P.W.-l has denied the claim of the complainant that he had purchased the said ticket from the booking counter on 19.1.1993. The said letter dated 28.9.1994 issued by the Coaching Superintendent, Muzaffarpur has been brought on record in support of the plea that the said ticket had been sold on 16.1.1993 but the cash book which was the basis for issuance of the said letter and in which the numbers of the sold tickets are said to have been noted has not been brought on record for the reasons best known to the opposite party appellant. Photocopy of the said ticket has been brought on record by the opposite party appellant but the date of sale of the said ticket is not legible. In the report of the Area Officer it has been mentioned that the said ticket had been sold on 16.1.1993. The basis for such report is the aforesaid letter dated 28.9.1994 of the Coaching Superintendent, Muzaffarpur. Due to non-production of the cash book it is difficult to hold on the basis of the said documents and testimony of O.P.W.-l that the ticket found in possession of the complainant had been sold on 16.1.1993. There is no other evidence from the side of the opposite party appellant to support the case that the said ticket found in possession of the complainant had been sold on 16.1.1993.
7. It has already been pointed out above that the opposite party in its written statement has not specifically denied the case of the complainant that Turkey Railway Station was dark when the said train reached there. Moreover this fact finds support from the affidavits of Ram Gati Choudhary and Manoj Kumar Singh brought on record by the complainant. In their affidavits Ram Gati Choudhary and Manoj Kumar Singh have stated that on 19.1.1993 they had travelled by the said train and on that day there was no light at Turkey Railway Station. The factum of darkness at Turkey Railway Station at the time of arrival of the said train is also apparent from the report dated 10.10.1994 of Area Officer, Muzaffarpur. The absence of light at the said railway station at the time of arrival of the said train undoubtedly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Railway Administration. Of course the Area Officer in his said report has pointed out that there was light in the train but the same cannot be substitute for light at railway station.
8. As mentioned earlier it has been alleged by the complainant that while he was alighting from the train at Turkey Railway Station the train took off without blowing whistle which led to his fall from the train and chopping off of his both legs by the wheels of the train. This allegation has not been specifically denied in the written statement of the opposite party appellant. Apart from that, this allegation has been supported by the complainant in his affidavit dated 23.8.1994. On the other hand Prabhunath Rai, the driver of the train in his affidavit has denied this allegation. His denial appears to be an after-thought on the part of opposite party. The aforesaid report of the Area Officer lends support to the denial of the driver and further shows that the complainant tried to get down from the running train at Turkey Railway Station as a result of which he fell down and both of his legs were chopped off due to coming under the wheels of the running train. It may be pointed out that the Area Officer of Muzaffarpur has neither been examined as a witness nor his affidavit has been brought on record with regard to the said report. Under the circumstances and in absence of any other reliable evidence it is difficult to accept the allegation that the complainant sustained the loss of his two legs due to his attempt to get down from the running train.
9. From the above discussion of the evidence brought on record by the parties this much is apparent that there was darkness at Turkey Railway Station when the said train arrived there and the accident with regard to the complainant took place. Absence of light at the railway station at the time of arrival of a passenger train undoubtedly amounts to deficiency in service. In view of this the complainant was certainly entitled to compensation.
10. The District Forum has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lakhs) as compensation. It may be pointed out that the complainant has brought on record copy of the notice under Section 78(B) of the Indian Railways Act sent by him to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. In the said notice he had claimed Rs. 1,00/000/- (Rs. one lakh). At the time of hearing the learned Counsel for the complainant (respondent) could not point out as to what was the basis for doubling the claim for compensation. In view of this, the grant of compensation to the complainant by the District Forum appears to be fit to be confined to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lakh) as claimed in the notice sent by him to the Railway Administration. Accordingly the amount of compensation allowed to the complainant is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lakh). The amount of cost of Rs. 1,100/- (Rs. one thousand and one hundred) allowed to the complainant by the District Forum appears to be reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission. With the above modification in the impugned order this appeal is hereby dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.