STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No. CC/15/764

1. Consumers Welfare Association, [A Voluntary Consumer Organization registered under The Societies Registration Act 1860 bearing Reg.No.643 of 2003]

Through its Authorized Representative Mr. Jehangir Gai, 402, B-Wing, Ashoka Complex, Justice Ranade Road, Dadar, Mumbai – 400028.

2. Mr. Hitendra Pranubhai Joshi, Aged 53 years, Occupation: Former LIC Agent

501, Shiv Pooja CHS, Desaiwad, Vapi (West) – 396 101. …………. Complainant Versus Western Railway, Through its General Manager, Western Railway Head Quarters, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. .…..…... Opposite Parties BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member PRESENT:

For the Complainant : Advocate Jehangir Gai For Opposite Party : Advocate Sunil Champalal Surana JUDGMENT (Date: 10-11-2025)

Per: Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member, Member

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Complainant No.1 a registered voluntary consumer organization having its administrative office at the address mentioned in the title clause and Complainant No.2 is the actual aggrieved consumer, against the Opposite Party Western Railway, through its General Manager alleging deficiency in service, and unfair trade Practice. Short Facts leading to filing of the Complaint may be narrated as under: 2. It is the case of the complainants that Complainant No.2, who was in Mumbai for certain work, decided to return to his hometown Valsad on 14.02.2014 upon being informed that his wife was unwell. He purchased a valid railway ticket for the journey from Borivali to Valsad and was to alight at Vapi. While attempting to board Train No. 12480 , Complainant No.2 slipped and fell on the railway track due to the low height of the platform, which, according to him, was not as per the prescribed specifications laid down by the Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO). It is stated that even the Bombay High Court in Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation No. 6 of 2014 had taken cognizance of defective platform heights and unsafe design at suburban stations. 3. The complainants further alleged that after Complainant No.2 fell on the track, the Guard and the Station Master of Borivali Station negligently allowed the train to move without ensuring the safety of passengers, in violation of Clause 313 of Chapter 3 of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual – I, which mandates that the Guard and the Station Master must ensure that no passenger is entraining or detraining before giving the starting signal. As a consequence of this failure, both legs of Complainant No.2 were run over by the moving train, resulting in their complete amputation above the knees.

4. It is further alleged that after the incident, the railway officials failed to provide immediate and proper medical aid. Instead of arranging for an ambulance, the officials wasted crucial time in recording his statement and shifted him to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar BMC Hospital, Kandivali, on a luggage trolley, without ascertaining whether the said hospital had the necessary infrastructure to handle such a grave injury. The complainants state that the hospital lacked an anaesthetist at the time, and the treatment given was inadequate, causing severe pain and further complications. Subsequently, the family of Complainant No.2 shifted him to Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, where he underwent multiple surgeries, including amputation of both legs, debridement, dressing, and skin grafting, and was admitted from

15.02.2014 to 19.06.2014, incurring medical expenses of Rs.19,46,088.85. Later, due to infection and pus discharge, he was again hospitalized from 12.08.2014 to 21.08.2014, incurring additional expenses of Rs.1,30,853/- as per the final bill.

5. The complainants have produced medical records, discharge summaries, and bills to substantiate the medical expenses. The treating surgeon, Dr. A.R. Karkhanis, issued a Disabili