UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 (here in after 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.

(2.) The facts of the case are that one Dr. Mohan Lal Gupta (here in after 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 up to 38% and in the right leg up to 13%. The Petitioner had to spend Rs. 1 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.

(3.) 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: