SAVITHRI BAI vs General Manager, Southern Railway

THIS is a case of an unfortunate lady aged about 55 years, who lost her both legs in the railway accident which took place on 5-9-1988 at about 5.30 A.M. lit the Malleswaram Railway Station in which Malnad Express train belonging to the Respondents was involved. Complainant boarded the Malnad Express train at Bhadravati on 4-9-1988 at 10.30 p.m. along with her Daughter-in Law, Smt. Shantha Bai (CW 2) and her grand daughter, Suguna, about 8 years. The train reached Malleswaram Railway Station at about 5.30 A.M. and it was stopped there for a scheduled halt of one minute. At that time, the complainant while alighting from the train slipped and her both legs were caught under the wheels of the train and were cut. She was removed to K.C. General Hospital, Malleswaram and thereafter to Sanjaya Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Bangalore, for treatment. Both her legs were amputated below the thigh. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was spent for her treatment. She has suffered permanent disability. Hence she has filed this complaint for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- together with interest and costs, alleging that the accident took place due, to the negligence of the Railways as they failed to provide services of an attendant to her who was aged and whose eye sight was not good, and as there was no lighting facility.

THE complaint is resisted by the Respondent by contending inter-alia that there was light at Malleswaram Railway Station then; that the accident occurred due to the gross negligence of the complainant in getting down from the off-side of the railway track and that she is not entitled to compensation as claimed. The complainant and her daughter-in-law have, given evidence as CWs. 1 and 2 and Ex.C-1 to C-4 have been produced on behalf of the complainant. RW1 is examined on behalf of the respondent and Ex.R-1 to R-6 have been produced.

The following facts are no longer in dispute before us : 1. that the complainant was travelling by Malnad Express train from Bhadravati to Bangalore on the night between 4th and 5th of September 1988; 2. that the complainant fell down while getting down from the train and sustained injuries to both her legs due to the wheels of the train passing over them; 3. that both her legs had to be amputated below the thigh.

BUT the question is whether the complainant sustained injuries due to the negligence of the respondent. To prove the same the complainant relies on her evidence and the evidence of her daughter-in-law (C.W-2). The complainant has stated in her statement (Ex.R-3) recorded on 3.3.1990 that her daughter, Ganga Bai was accompanying her. Hence, it is doubtful whether at all C.W-2 was travelling with C.W-1 in the train on that night as stated by C.Ws. 1 and 2. C.W-1 in her examination-in-chief has stated that there was no light in the railway station then and that the train started moving when she was getting down from the train and due to that she fell down and both her legs were caught under the wheels of the train. In cross-examination she has admitted that she did not get down towards the platform and she got down on the other side of the track; that nobody got down from the entrance where she got down; that there was electric lamp burning in the platform and the light was there on that there was no platform where she got down from the train. She has also admitted that she has not stated in her application given by her to the Railways and also in the lawyers notice that there was no light in the train or on the platform and that the train started moving when she was getting down. In view of the said admissions, it is clear that she has introduced absence of light and the train moving when she was getting down, later for the purpose of this case; According to C.W-2, she got down from the train after her Mother-in-law got down from the train. C.W-1 has stated that her daughter-in-law and her daughter were in that bogie when she was getting down. Hence, it is clear that C.W-2 got down from the train after C. W-1 got down. C.W-2 has clearly admitted that the train was not moving when she got down from the train. So the train must not be moving when C.W-1 got down from the train. There must be light also as admitted by the complainant. In view of her admission that she got down from the off-side of the train where there was no platform, we are of the view that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the complainant and not due to the negligence of the Railways. If that is so, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

BEFORE parting with the case, we would like to observe that looking to the pathetic condition of the complainant and the feet that both her legs were caught under the wheels of the train and she has lost her both legs in the accident, the Railways may consider sympathetically her application for granting some ex-gratia compensation. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Under the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.