SOUTHERN RAILWAYS Vs. M CHIDAMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is unfortunate father of C. Jayendra aged about 18 years and student of B.E. Computer Course at M.V. College of Engineering, Whitefield near Bangalore in the State of Karnataka. He was travelling from Madras to Bangalore by the train Madras Mail on 9.6.1994 at about 5.50 a.m. when he met with an accident. Allegation is that when the train was passing through the Whitefield Station, C. Jayendra slipped from the compartment and fell through the space between the moving train and the platform with the result his legs were run over. It is alleged that at the time of the accident Jayendra was fully conscious and he was bleeding profusely. Allegation in the complaint is that no proper medical assistance was provided to Jayendra by the Station Master with the result be succumbed to his injuries on the same day at about 7.00 a.m.

(2.) Alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed by the father claiming compensation of Rs. 20 lakiis. Refuting the contention of the' complainant it is the case of the respondents that Madras Mail had no stop at Whitefield. When train was in motion Jayendra tried to alight negligently which resulted in his falling and his suffering injuries. The allegation that Station Master did not provide any proper help was denied.

(3.) State Commission after examining the pleadings and evidence on record held both the Railways and Station Master jointly and severally liable and directed them to pay Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation. Beth the complainant and respondents feeling aggrieved by the order of the State Commission have filed two separate appeals before us. It is not disputed that the accident in question occurred due to untoward incident as mentioned in Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989. That being so jurisdiction of Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be barred under Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. We accordingly allow the appeal of the Railway First Appeal No. 117 of 2001, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant (First Appeal No. 138/2001) is dismissed as the complaint itself was not maintainable.