IMPORTANT POINT
Accident on Railway platform. Consumer Forum can entertain claim case.

R.C. Jain, Presiding Member —This appeal raises an important question of law in regard to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora to entertain and decide the complaints seeking compensation for injury / death of a railway passenger owing to the alleged deficiency on the part of Railway Administration.

2. The .facts and circumstances leading to the present appeal filed by the Union of India (Western Railway Administration), against the order dated 24.06.03 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case No. 4/2000, are that the respondents, Smt. Shiv Devi Agarwal and Shri Ram Vilas Agarwal, the unfortunate parents of one, Raju Agarwal (deceased), filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter, ‘the Act’) before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, Railway Administration to the effect that on 2.8.99 at about 9.00 p.m. at Bandikui Railway Station, the said Raju Agarwal went to drink water at the Hydrant (Drinking Water Booth) installed at the platform and while he was drinking water at the said hydrant, the wall of the said hydrant fell down causing grievous injury to him (Raju Agarwal) and leading to his instantaneous death. The complainants alleged that the said incident/accident resulting in the death of their son took place due to faulty construction, use of inferior/sub-standard material and improper maintenance of the said hydrant. Alleging deficiency in service Railway Administration, the complainants claimed Compensation of Rs.15,00 ,000 /- (Rupees fifteen lakh only) for mental agony and a sum of Rs.25,OOO/- towards the cost of litigation. The complaint was resisted by the Railway Administration, inter alia, raising preliminary objection about the jurisdiction of the State Commission to entertain and decide the complaint on the ground of absence of relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between the deceased and the Railway administration as also on the ground that the jurisdiction of the State Commission was expressly barred by the provisions of sections 13, 15 and 28 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. On merits, the averments and allegations made in the complaint, more particularly with regard to any negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration, were denied. It was maintained that the hydrant in question was installed at the platform in order to provide drinking water facility to the railway passengers and others at the Bandikui Railway Station and other Railway Stations. It was pleaded that the hydrant was constructed according to the technically approved specifications and using quality controlled raw material. However, it was sought to be explained that the hydrant was newly constructed at platform no.1 at Bandikui Railway Station and had not yet been made operational, not even been connected to the water supply system. As such, it was not yet in use by the passengers and public for drinking water. As regards the circumstances in which Raju Agarwal had received the injuries and died, it was sought to be explained that on the fateful day and time, four or five passengers (including he, Raju Aggarwal) seated themselves on the lower part of the hydrant. Since the supporting• walls could not bear the weight of the seated persons, it fell down on them. While the other persons were lucky enough to flee from the side of the projecting portion, the hydrant fell on the head of the deceased causing his death. It was contended that it was a totally unforeseen and unfortunate accident for which the Railway Administration could not be held liable.

3. Parties led evidence in support of their versions. The State Commission, going by the respective pleas and contentions and after a thorough examination of the relevant provisions of the Act as also that of the Railways Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 and the law on the subject, however, c