AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the Order of the District Forum, Belgaum, is complaint No. 5/1989 on its file, dismissing the complaint of the appellants for compensation on account of negligence of the Respondent. It arises in this way:
ON August 14, 1989 the Appellants boarded Kittur Express Train No. 208 at Belgaum Railway Station at 6.00 p.m. to go to Bangalore. The said train left Belgaum Railway Station at about 6.00 p.m. and reached Londa Railway Station at about 7.15 p.m., the same day. It was stopped there till about 11.00 p.m. as there was derailment due to an accident involving a goods train between Nagaragali and Tavaraghatta at about 2.34 p.m. on that day. The said train left Londa Railway Station at about 11.00 p.m. and it reached Nagaragali Railway Station at about 11.30 p.m. There it was stopped till about 5.45 a.m. and thereafter it proceeded towards Bangalore and reached Bangalore after a delay of about 6 hours. Due to the halting of the train in the Railway Station at Nagaragali where there was no food or water available, they suffered due to hunger and thirst. They also suffered mental agony due to fear that during mid-night time dacoity might take place and their jewellery of about Rs. 1 lakh may be stolen away. According to them, the Station Master refused to refund their amount of the ticket thus preventing them from making alternate arrangement to go to Bangalore. Hence they filed complaints before the District Forum, Belgaum claiming compensation of Rs. 2,000/- each. The respondent registered the said complaints by contending inter-alia that the complaints are not maintainable as the Union of India is not made a party; that frequent announcements were made through public address system regarding the accident and the possible delay of the said train at Belgaum and Londa stations and requesting the passengers to avail of the facility of food and water and also to take refund if they so desire; that necessary arrangements for supply of food, refreshments and water were made available to the passengers; that adequate facilities for catering were available at Londa Railway Station; that many passengers took refund and availed of the facilities of food and refreshments; that the accident was beyond the control of the Respondent and the delay was unavoidable and that the complainants are not entitled to any compensation. Smt. Vatsala R. Naik, one of the complainant was examined as PW 1 and exhibits PI and P2 were produced in support of the complaint. DWs 1 to 3 were examined and D1 the roduced on behalf of the Respondent. On a careful analysis of the evidence and circumstances of the case, the District Forum reached the conclusion that the railway authorities were not negligent and that the complainants were not entitled to any compensation and dismissed their complaints. Hence this appeal by the complainants.
Mr. Srinivasan for the Respondent has filed cross objections against the order of the District Forum, Belgaum refusing to award costs to the Respondent.
SMT. Suman Hedge for the appellants took us through the evidence in the case and urged that the Railway Department was negligent in view of the following circumstances:- (1) That no public announcement regarding the accident and the consequent deaay must have been made as the record regarding the same has not been produced, (2) That the train should not have been taken to Nagaragali Railway Station which is situated in the midst of a jungle and where there was no facility of food and water at the dead of night and halted there till about 5.45 a.m., (3) That there must not have been facility for food, eatables, etc., at Londa Railway Station as no documents have been produced regarding the same, (4) That the Station Master refused to refund the amount of the fare to the complaints.
In their complaints, the complainants have clearly admitted that on reaching Londa Railway Station they learnt that there was a derailment between Londa and Hubli and that the train would be delayed for a quite a long and indefinite time. PW 1 has admitted in her evidence that there was a rumour that there was a derailment near Nagaragali and on hearing that rumour she made enquiry with the Station Master at Belgaum. She has not spoken as to what the Station Master told her. From Exhibit D4, it is clear that the news of the accident had been flashed to all the concerned railway stations by 3.24 p.m. on 14.8.1989. So naturally, the Station Master must have told them about the accident and the unforeseen delay. The rumour must have spread only on account of the announcement made. These circumstances probabalise the version of DWs 1 to 3 who are Railway Officials. DW 2 was the Station Master at Londa at the relevant time. He has stated that he received a message to make public announcement at Londa Station regarding the accident, the delay and the catering arrangements and request the passengers to avail of the same and to get refund if they wanted and that he acted upon those instructions by announcing the same through loud speaker. His evidence finds support from the entries in exhibit D4. The District Forum which had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and marking their demeanour has chosen to believe DW 1 to 3 and we see no reason to disagree with it. When the complainants themselves admit in their complaints that on reaching Londa Station they learnt that there was a derailment between Londa and Hubli and that the train would be delayed for quite a long and indefinite time, the fact whether there was public announcement or not, loses all importance. The evidence of PW 1 shows that even at Belgaum Railway Station she had come to know about the accident and the possible delay. Hence the complainants were free to abandon their journey by train and take refund at Belgaum itself.
PW 1 has clearly admitted in her evidence that they did not try to purchase any eatables at Londa. It is common knowledge that at Railway Stations catering arrangements are made for supply of eatables, tea, coffee, water, etc.. The facility must have been there at Londa Railway Station which is a junction. PW 1 has pleaded ignorance about the food, tiffin, etc., being available at Londa Railway Station. She has also admitted that they had taken tiffin at Belgaum before boarding the train and that they had taken biscuits and snacks along with them and that they did not try to purchase any eatables at Londa. Under the circumstances, the District Forum was justified in rejecting the contention of the complainants that no facility of food, etc., was made by the Railways. PW 1 has admitted that they did not try to get refund in Londa Station since they were carrying cash and silver articles worth Rs. 1,00,000/-. So the version of the complainants in their complaint that the Station master refused to refund their amount must not be true. On the other hand the evidence of DW 2 and the documents show that refund was made at Londa Railway Station. From the entries in exhibit D4, it is clear that the track would have been repaired and would have been ready for traffic by about 12.00 mid-night. So in order to avoid delay the train was moved from Londa Railway Station at 11.30 p.m. towards Nagaragali Railway Station. Unfortunately, the train had to be stopped there till about 5.45 a.m. i.e., for about 6 hours as the trach could not be made worthy of traffic till then. After mid-night normally the complainants who arc old ladies cannot be expected to eat anything. There must have been many passengers in that train as also in the reserved compartments in which the complainants were travelling as stated by DW 1. There was also no attempt of theft or dacoity during that night. Hence the fear of the complainants appear to be imaginary and they have not suffered any loss. Admittedly, it was also raining that night. Under the circumstances, the accident and the consequent delay in running the train were beyond the control of the Respondent. The evidence of DWs 1 to 3 shows that they had done all that was expected of them that day. Under the circumstances, the view of the District Forum that there was no negligence on the part of the Railways is proper. If that is so, the complainants are not entitled to any compensation and the order of the District Forum, Belgaum dismissing their complaints is also proper. The award of costs is a matter within the discretion of the District Forum, Belgaum. Looking to the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the District Forum erred in refusing to award costs to the Respondent. We see no compelling ground to interfere with the said order. Hence the cross-objections also fail. In the result, the appeal and the cross-objections are dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.