P Nageswara Rao vs Kaliboina Suribabu

THE un -successful fourth opposite party in O.P. No. 122/1995 on the file of the District Forum, Visakhapatnamw, is the appellant before this Commission.

THE facts in brief are that while the complainant was travelling from A. Annavaram to Vizianagaram by Train No. 6004 -Mail with 2nd Class Ticket bearing No. 218781 and when the train stopped at Anakapalle between 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. the complainant went to the Railway Canteen, purchased yellow rice packet for Rs. 3/ - from the appellant. The complainant returned to the compartment and when he opened the packet he found that the food product was stale and putrefied. However, due to his hunger, he ate some food and started vomiting and suffered severe stomachache. In the next halt at Visakhapatnam, he complained to the Station Master, Visakhapatnam. Due to the supply of putrified food, he suffered ailments and claimed damages. Opposite parties 1 to 3 has alleged that opposite party No. 4 was permitted to sell food items only from 25.2.1995, and that opposite party No. 4 stated that he did not sell any food packet to the complainant. Basing on these pleadings, the District Forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of fourth opposite party and awarded damages of Rs. 1,000/ - and costs of Rs. 1,000/ -. Aggrieved by the said finding and order, the fourth opposite party preferred this appeal. The point for consideration is, whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the fourth opposite party ?

THE complainant is an Advocate and is practising at Tuni. He was travelling from A. Annavaram to Vizianagaram by Howrah Mail. At Anakapalle he purchased a yellow rice packet from the fourth opposite party for Rs. 3/ -. When he returned to the compartment and started eating it, he found the food was putrified and foul smell emanating from it. When he consumed a part of it, he started vomiting and felt pain in the stomach. The opposite parties 1 to 3 asserted that he was issued the licence to sell food packets only from 25.2.1995, and he did not sell any food packet on 24.2.1995. The same is the defence of the fourth opposite party. Opposite parties filed a letter dated 18.2.1995 issued by the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada directing the fourth opposite party to supply meals on trains stopping at Anakapalle Station with effect from 25.2.1995.

BASING on this letter the fourth opposite party contends that he has not sold any food packet to the complainant on 24.2.1995. The complainant as soon as the train stopped at Visakhapatnam has written his complaint in the complaint book, a Xerox copy of which is filed before the District Forum. In this complaint, he has given his ticket number and has also categorically stated that he has taken some tamarind rice packet for Rs. 3/ - from the Railway Canteen, Anakapalle and while taking the food it was emanating foul smell and it must have been prepared at day prior to the sale, and that he suffered with stomachache and severe comitings, and requested to take immediate action. He also sent a complaint to the Railway Minister, New Delhi narrating these facts. He also issued a registered notice to the Food and Health Inspector, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and the opposite party No. 4. Therefore, it cannot be said that the fourth opposite party has not sold any putrified food to the complainant. These documents clearly show that the complainant has purchased yellow rice from the fourth opposite party on 24.2.1995 and the said food was putrified and that after eating it, the complainant fell ill. The District Forum has rightly viewed the matter and allowed the complaint. We find no merits in this appeal and this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly with costs of Rs. 1,000/ -. Time for payment six weeks. Appeal dismissed.