M.H.RAHIMKUTTY Vs. SOUTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Trivandrumin O.P. No. 444/02 order dated 31.5.2010. The appellant is the complainant in the above O.P. to prefers this appeal against dismissal order of the Complaint by the Forum below. The respondents are the opposite parties in the above mentioned O.P.

(2.) In short, the complaint is a regular season ticket passenger in the opposite party?s train from Thiruvananthapuram station to Kanyakumari by using season ticket vide Train No. 1082 Jayanthi Janatha, Kanyakumari ? Mumbai on 31.07.2001, the complainant was traveling from Thiruvananthapuram to Kanyakumari as usual. He was sitting on the side seat near the window of the train and when the train reached near Kaniyapuram at about 7.45 A.M. , the shutter of the window which was raised and locked suddenly it slipped down and fell on the right hand of the complainant causing series injury to the right hand and finger of the complainant. The blood rushed through the wound. Then the complainant who was at unconscious by the time was rushed to the Taluk hospital, Chirayinkeezh by his colleagues Later the complainant was directed to go to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for further treatment. Due to this accident, the complainant?s portion of tip crushed of. The small finger is removed by the doctors of the MedicalCollege Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Alleging deficiency in service and negligence and indifferent attitude of the Railway personnel by not keeping the lock of the window properly the complainant preferred a complaint before the Forum below for the relief under the provisions of C.P. Act, the complaint who sustained huge loss and mental pain. Hence the complaint.

(3.) The opposite parties filed written version and contended that the complainant is not maintainable by law and also contended that the complainant did not prove that he has traveled by 1982 Express Train on 31.7.2001and the alleged train at all the complainant denied to specify whether he has unlocked the tower belts of the window beside which he has allegedly traveled. They contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, railway authorities and allegation that the injury of the complainant is false and denied. They contended that this is a vexatious complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.