State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Annapurna & Ors vs Sahayak Prabandhak (Karmik) Steel ... on 27 November, 2018
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2018/669
Instituted on : 10.07.2018
1. Smt. Annapurna, W/o Late Deenbandhu, Aged 53 years,
2. D. Basant Kumari, D/o Late Deenbandhu, Aged 30 years,
3. D. Venu, D/o Late Deenbandhu, Aged 28 years.
All are resident of : Quarter No.7/E, Zone Khursipar,
Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) ..... Appellants (Complainants)
Vs.
1. Assistant Manager (Personnel),
Steel Employees Welfare Association, SEWA,
Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) .... Respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1)
2. Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Karnataka Bank, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road,
Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.)
Pin 491001 .... Respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2)
Appeal No.FA/2018/670
Instituted on : 10.07.2018
1. Smt. Annapurna, W/o Late Deenbandhu, Aged 53 years,
2. D. Basant Kumari, D/o Late Deenbandhu, Aged 30 years,
3. D. Venu, D/o Late Deenbandhu, Aged 28 years.
All are resident of : Quarter No.7/E, Zone Khursipar,
Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) ..... Appellants (Complainants)
Vs.
1. Assistant Manager (Personnel),
Steel Employees Welfare Association, SEWA,
Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) .... Respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1)
2. Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Karnataka Bank, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road,
Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.)
Pin 491001 .... Respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2)
// 2 //
Appeal No.FA/2018/671
Instituted on : 10.07.2018
1. Smt. Annapurna, W/o Late Deenbandhu, Aged 53 years,
2. D. Basant Kumari, D/o Late Deenbandhu, Aged 30 years,
3. D. Venu, D/o Late Deenbandhu, Aged 28 years.
All are resident of : Quarter No.7/E, Zone Khursipar,
Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) ..... Appellants (Complainants)
Vs.
1. Assistant Manager (Personnel),
Steel Employees Welfare Association, SEWA,
Bhilai Steel Plant,
Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) .... Respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1)
2. Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
Karnataka Bank, Parakh Bhawan, Station Road,
Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.)
Pin 491001 .... Respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.B. BAJPAI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. RUCHI GOEL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES IN ALL APPEALS :
Shri Prashant Sinha, Advocate for the appellants (complainants) Shri Shriram Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1). Shri C. Motisagar, Advocate for the respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2).
ORAL ORDER DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2018 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.B. BAJPAI, PRESIDENT. All three appeals are being disposed off by a common order as they are between the same parties, for the same cause of action, for the same incident and reliefs regarding the insured amount, compensation for mental harassment and other reliefs. As Deenbandhu an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant who had taken Group Insurance Policies and was member of the Group and as on 19.12.2016 when he was walking near Railway Crossing, he was hit by a train // 3 // and on account of injuries, he died. After his death the concerned Investigating Agency conducted the necessary investigation under Section 174 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in brevity "The Cr. PC) and also the matter was duly investigated by the concerned authorities. The Legal Heirs of Late Deenbandhu requested for claim from the respondents in all three matters. When the concerned Insurance Company and the authorities rejected the claim, the complainants filed three complaint cases before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (in brevity "District Forum") bearing Complaint Case No.CC/17/553, CC/17/576 and CC/17/623 and prayed that on account of deficiency in service and professional misconduct wrongly they were not given the insurance amount and other claim as there was no any fault on the part of the deceased Deenbandhu as he none of his wrong accidentally hit by a train and at that time it was not proved that the Railway Crossing Gate was closed, hence they may be compensated accordingly.
2. The concerned District Forum, vide orders passed in all three complaint cases, has dismissed all three complaint cases vide orders dated 07.06.2018.
3. Against the said dismissal of the complaints, the appellants / complainants have filed aforementioned three First Appeals praying that the concerned District Forum had committed a mistake of fact and law and wrongly dismissed their complaint cases, as aforementioned. Hence the appeals may be allowed and the respondents / OPs may be directed to pay the claim as per the complaints and the reliefs claimed.
// 4 //
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in all three First Appeals jointly.
5. As a solitary question involved in all the matters, other facts are admitted in all three cases.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants / complainants draws the attention of this Commission towards Annexure A-4 which is Police Investigation Report regarding Merg No.166/2016 under Section 174 of The Cr.PC, wherein the Superintendent of Police, District Durg (C.G.) gave final verdict of the Police Investigation that as the decease Deenbandhu was crossing a Railway Gate and at that time a train came and the deceased hit by the train and died. Learned counsel for the appellants / complainants would submit that there is nothing in the Report that at that time the Railway gate was closed and if Railway gat was not closed, it was none of any negligence on the part of the deceased. This was deficiency in service and denial of the insurance claim may be a mis - conduct by the authorities, hence all three appeals may be allowed and reliefs as claimed may be awarded to the appellants/ complainants. In addition to above material arguments, learned counsel for the appellants / complainant elaborated the other facts of the incident, what was required in the matter to demonstrate that it was negligence of deceased Deenbandhu for the dismissal of the claim, hence prayed that the appeals may be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents (OPs) draws attention of this Commission that the Investigator (Advocate) of the Insurance Company, investigated the incident and during investigation the Investigator recorded the statement of Shri Gopal Singh, who was Gatekeeper and Railway employee // 5 // on duty at the time of the incident. As per his statement when he received the signal regarding passing of Gorakhpur - Durg Express, he had closed Khursipar Railway Gate and at that time a person was crossing the closed gate and came with the contact of the train and injured and died spontaneously. He and Train Guard informed the facts to the authorities. Learned counsels would further supplement that before the concerned District Forum, in all three complaint cases, the affidavit of said Shri Gopal Singh was filed along with written response. He was not subjected for any cross - examination. With this, the statement of Shri Gopal Singh, recorded by the Investigator, his statement on oath filed before the concerned District Forum, was unrebutted, hence as the deceased on account of his own negligence died by coming contact of train. With this, as per settled law, the respondents are not responsible to pay claim, as the deceased died because of his own fault.
8. In reply to reply, learned counsel for the appellants / complainant would submit that merely by filing the statement and affidavit, these facts are not proved, as required, as there is no I.D. proof of said Shri Gopal Singh or documents showing that he was on duty at the time of incident, hence both these documents are of no relevance for the defence of the respondents / OPs, hence the same may be discarded.
9. Perused the entire record.
10. Section 174 of The Cr. PC is a core issue in the matters because on account of accident, Deenbandhu died. Section 174 of The Cr.PC is relevant in the matters. The same is reproduced here in toto as below :-
// 6 // "174. Police to inquire and report on suicide, etc. - (1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place, where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appears to have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate.
(3) When -
(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her
marriage; or.
(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her
marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that // 7 // some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or
(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or
(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or
(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall, subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.
(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate".
11. It is required from the concerned Authorities to record statement and take all the materials for the incident.
12. We have perused the document Annexure A-4 Police Investigation Report and also Annexure A-5 - Copy of the Merg Register, wherein the facts regarding the incident is stated. Also after perusal of Annexure A-6 -
// 8 // Panchnama, in which the facts are mentioned as deceased was hit by a train when he was crossing Khursipar Railway Gate. The deceased was passing a Railway Crossing if the gate was opened then, it was part of the duties to be fulfilled by the appellants/ complainants as they were the persons, who had filed the complaints. On a general assumption that at a Railway Crossing where a person is employed and train passes, he is required to close the gate otherwise operation of the train may not function. The respondents in support gave the Statement of Shri Gopal Singh recorded by the Investigator / Lawyer and also filed his affidavit. The Gateman is the key person whose statement is to be recorded by the Police during investigation under Section 174 of The Cr. PC. It appears that deliberately, the appellants / complainants have not filed the Statement recorded by the Police of the said Shri Gopal Singh under the relevant provisions of The Cr. PC. Even apart, they have not filed copy of the anybody's statement recorded by the Police during investigations under Section 174 of The Cr.PC. We are not agreed that the word is not there that the gate was closed. Undisputedly, the deceased was crossing a gate run by the Railway in a public road. As per material, a Railway employee was employed, whose duty is to close the gate, if he does not, he may be under disciplinary and other action. Even apart the Engine Driver, Guard and other authorities verify whether the gates are closed or not. Even other mechanism is fitted with the Railway gates regarding essentiality of closure of the gate. It shall automated procedure unless there is clearance in the system any gate man cannot remain gate open.
13. We are not agree that the statement of Shri Gopal Singh and his statement on oath does not bears any importance. As statement is unrebutted, // 9 // during proceedings, it was well within the knowledge of the appellants / complainants that as per statement, the Railway gate was closed. Suppose for the sake of arguments, the get was not closed and Police found this fact and railway authorities initiated any proceedings against the said gate keeper Shri Gopal Singh then no one restricted the appellants / complainants to file any documents to that effect.
14. On conclusion, we are of the view that the concerned District Forum, has not committed any factual or legal error while dismissing all three complaint cases. We are also agree that there is no deficiency in service or professional mis-conduct on the part of the respondents / OPs.
15. Consequently, we dispose of all three appeals bearing No.FA/18/669, FA/18/670 and FA/18/671 in the following manner :-
(i) Appeal bearing No.FA/18/669, FA/18/670 and FA/18/671, are hereby dismissed.
(ii) No order as to the cost of these appeals.
(Justice C.B. Bajpai) (Narendra Gupta) (Smt. Ruchi Goel) President Member Member 27/11/2018 27/11/2018 27/11/2018