EX HAVILDAR BALBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the limited purpose of upholding the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the opposite parties and consequently relegating the complainant to his ordinary remedy under the Civil Court, it seems wholly unnecessary to delve into the facts in any great detail. It suffices to mention that the complainant whilst in service, was traveling on a Railway Concession Voucher issued by Army authorities from Jammu Tawi to Hisar. On 5th of August, 1990, at Jakhal Railway Station he attempted to board a moving train with the result that he fell down and the wheel of the train went over the complainant's right leg which was crushed with consequential injuries. Aggrieved thereby the present complaint seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.8 lacs has been preferred on the allegation of the negligence by the Railway authorities.

(2.) In the reply on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 preliminary objections have been taken which have been very strenuously pressed by Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, their learned Counsel. It has been first urged with vehemence that on the basis of the Confessional Vouchers, the complainant was not entitled to board the moving train which he attempted to and being an unauthorized passenger thereof, he would not come within the ambit of a bona fide railway passenger and consequently would not be a consumer. Further, on the basis of the averments in the reply, serious allegations of negligence and default have been squarely laid at the door of the complainant himself on the ground that he rashly tried to board running train after it had gone beyond the platform and consequently slipped and got himself injured. Counsel's plea was that other things apart a ticklish question of contributory negligence would arise for determination.

(3.) Yet again firm reliance is being placed by the opposite party on a statement given by the complainant himself to the Railway Police, a copy whereof has been annexed as R-1. On the basis of the contents thereof, it was pleaded that the complainant therein had in terms admitted his own fault and expressly exonerated the railway from all the blame. On the basis of the pleadings, the threshold stand of the learned Counsel for the opposite party is that herein ticklish and deeply complicated issues of fact and law arise which must necessarily be established or repudiated by voluminous evidence and consequently the list is not one which can be tried in the summary consumer jurisdiction and must, therefore, be relegated to the appropriate Civil Court.