- (1.) THE complainant's case is that the 2nd and 3rd complainants went to the Dindigul Railway Station on 9.11.1999 at about 9.30 p.m. in the night to receive their relations viz., their son and daughter -in -law who were coming by Vaigai Express. According to them on the platform, there was a trench and there was no proper lighting. Without being aware of the trench, the 3rd complainant fell into it as a result of which she suffered injuries and she could not walk. Later, an X -ray was taken and it was found that she had sustained fracture in the knee. According to the complainants, all that happened because of the deficiency in service on the part of the Railways in not maintaining the platform properly and hence the complainants have claimed Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation.
(2.) THE opposite parties contended that when the 3rd complainant fell down, the opposite party extended all their help to admit her in the hospital. The place where the pit was dug up, was properly fenced. There was also proper lighting. Thus there was no deficiency in service.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants relies upon the decision of this Commission to contend that the question of deficiency will not arise. It is to be pointed out that the opposite parties definitely charge the public who want to go into the railway station either for the purpose of seeing off their relations or receiving their relations. They are, therefore, rendering a service. Service is defined under the Consumer Protection Act as any act of service. Railway platforms have to be maintained properly as the public and passengers flock in multitude. It is the duty of the Railway Authorities to maintain the platform properly. There must be sufficient lighting in the platforms. Even if certain construction works are being carried out or for any other reason, pit or trenches are being dug, it is their duty to fence the area and put up warning boards in the platforms informing the public of the same. If really there was such a notice, there would not have been any necessity for the complainants to have proceeded in that direction knowing fully well that it was not safe. It is admitted in the version that certain construction work was going on. Though the opposite parties state that they have properly barricaded the area and provided enough illumination, they have not produced any photographs or any material to establish the same. On the other hand, on their own showing, it is clear that some construction work was going on in the platform and there was a pit dug up for that purpose measuring about 12 to 15 feet. It is not also known how the opposite parties assert that the complainants were anxious to see their son and grandson and in their eagerness the 3rd complainant dashed negligently and fell into the pit. It is also stated in version that the complainant dashed against the barricade, tripped and fell into the pit. If really the barricading had been done properly and at least to the height of 3 feet from the platform level, one could not get tripped and fall into the pit. Thus we find only an inconsistency in the case of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Further, it is to be pointed out that it has happened in the night. The complainants have produced the platform tickets which were purchased for three persons. They have also produced the journey ticket to show that their son and daughter -in -law travelled from Chennai to Dindigul on that date. Ex. A -3 is the letter signed by the 2nd complainant stating that his wife was injured and fell into the pit in platform No. 2 and that there was no lighting facility or caution board and there was no proper fencing in the platform. The complainants have also produced bills from the Nursing Home. It may be pointed out that in their letter dated 23.11.1999 the opposite parties have replied as follows: "Though barricade was erected and lighting provided surrounding the trench, further action has been immediately taken to improve the lighting and strengthening the barricade." This letter contains an admission that the lighting was poor and the barricade was not properly done. Otherwise, there would not have been any necessity for them to say that they have taken steps to improve the lighting and strengthening the barricade. Therefore, in such circumstances, it has been clearly established that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in that they have failed to maintain the platform properly knowing fully well that the platforms are used by passengers or public. The passengers or the public when they go to the railway station to receive their relations, will be naturally in a hurry to receive them and will be particular to see that they do not miss them in the crowd. Likewise, those who board the trains will also be eager to run up and catch the trains or locate their bogie and get into it. Apart from the travellers and those who come to the platform to receive or see off, there will be other section of crowd also. Therefore, the railway platform is a busy area. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the opposite parties to maintain the platforms properly especially to see that no mishap takes place. Whenever they undertake any construction work by digging trenches in the platform, they have to see to it that they put up proper sign boards and erect strong and high barricades so that nothing untoward happens. Here, admittedly, a trench was dug up in the platform No. 2. From the records it is clear that there was no sufficient lighting and the barricade was also not properly erected. The complainants who have gone there to receive their son, daughter -in -law and grandson would be only eager to receive them and they would be justified in expecting that if a trench is dug up in the platform it would have been properly barricaded and there will be enough lighting. Especially when they are in a rush to receive their relatives, dear and near, they presume that everything would be in order and will be naturally using the platform with the thought in their mind that everything will be all right. Therefore, it is the duty cast upon the opposite parties to maintain the platform properly and put up sufficient warning sign board and barricades in the places where a trench is dug up, to see that the users of the platform do not run into mishaps. It is, therefore, clear that the opposite parties have failed to discharge their obligation of duty and hence it follows that the opposite parties are liable squarely to pay compensation to the complainants.;