GENERAL MANAGER EASTERN RAILWAY Vs. APURBA KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows : - The opposite party purchased a Railway Ticket at Katwa Junction on 4.10.2002 for undertaking a journey by Katwa-Howrah Local Train which was scheduled to leave Katwa Junction Station at 6 a.m. After the opposite party reached platform No.1 of such station the opposite party came to know that the Train will leave from platform No. 2. The opposite party decided to cross the Railway tracks since the over-bridge was closed at that time due to repairing work. The opposite party in his attempt to cross the Railway tracks fell on the Railway track and suffered a compound fracture in his right leg since his right foot got locked in between a boulder and Railway track. The opposite party had to rush to a nearby Nursing Home where he was treated for the fracture. The opposite party lodged a General Diary on 6.10.2002 with the Katwa GRP in respect of the said incident for which the opposite party had suffered 60% disability. The opposite party made a representation on 10th October, 2002 to the petitioner No.2 and sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been paid by the petitioners to the opposite party. The opposite party filed a case being CDF/UNIT-l/case No. 225 of 2003 before the Calcutta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bhawbani Bhawan, Kolkata (Unit I) against the petitioners praying for orders directing the petitioners to make payment of compensation amount of Rs. 3 lacs on account of 60% disability caused to the opposite party and suffering of severe pain and mental agony and to make reimbursement of the balance sum of Rs. 29,585/- on account of medical expenditure and to make payment of Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. The said case was contested by the petitioners by filing written objection. It was alleged by the petitioners that the opposite party suffered the consequence of his own rash and negligent act and the opposite party committed an illegal act by trying to cross the Railway track directly from high platform. It is the case of the petitioners that immediately after the accident a stretcher was provided to the opposite party and medical assistance was offered to him and the Railway authority also offered and paid ex-gratia amount of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party as per the provisions of law. It. was also the case of the petitioners that the passengers concerned were requested through public address system to avail the path-way at Azimgunj end at Katwa platform since that is an alternative path-way.

(2.) That by an order dated 4.12.2007 the said District Forum allowed the said case by directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 18,900/- on account of medical treatment, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 2,000/- on account of litigation costs to the opposite party within a stipulated period of time failing which it was directed that the petitioners shall have to pay interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the said amount till realisation. Against such order dated 04.12.07 the petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission being S.C. Case No. F.A./2008/ 148. The Learned State Commission by order dated 23.09.2008 dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the judgement passed by the District Forum.

(3.) It appears that subsequently by order dated 3.11.2008 the Learned State Commission made some corrections in its judgement dated 23.9.2008. The petitioners have challenged the said order dated 23.09.2008, as corrected by the order dated 3.11.2008, passed by the Learned State Commission in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the very outset the learned senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the opposite party and the jurisdiction to hear the present dispute exclusively lies with the Railway Claims Tribunal. He has also submitted that the accident which took place had no connection whatsoever with the services provided by the Railways and the opposite party's complaint is not in relation to any services hired or availed of by the opposite party because the injury suffered by the opposite party had no correlation with the services provided by the Railways. The said learned senior Counsel further submitted that in respect of the accident that had occurred the opposite party cannot indicate any fault, imperfection, short-coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of any service required to be maintained by or under any law and/or contract by the Railways.