The claim for 'untoward incident' compensation is entertainable only by the Railway Claims Tribunal and not by the Consumer Fora, based on the specific provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

ORDER

Rakesh Saksena, J.—This order shall govern disposal of IA/1, an application filed by the opposite party no.1 under Order 7, Rule 11 , C.P.C., and also the objection raised by opposite party no.2 challenging the maintainability of the complaint before this Commission. Learned counsel for the complainant has also filed reply to the said applications.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant no.1/Ms. Rati Tripathi was working as an Academic Counselor in the Administration Department with PACE IIT Education (P) Ltd. at Delhi after having completed her educational studies. In the night of 18.11.2014, Ms. Rati Tripathi boarded Train No.12920 Malwa Express from Nizamuddin Station for going to Ujjain. She had a reserved berth No. 8 in coach No.S/7. In the late night she changed her berth and shifted to lower berth in the same compartment. It is alleged that some unidentified persons boarded the train from Lalitpur and tried to snatch the purse of Ms. Rati Tripathi. She resisted with all her strength, but they over-powered her and pushed her out of the running train and disappeared from the compartment. She was found lying on the railway tracks near station Karonda in unconscious and very bad physical state. She was referred to District Hospital, Sagar from where she was referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. She was subsequently admitted in Bansal Hospital, Bhopal. She had suffered serious injuries and remained under critical condition for sufficiently long time. She was discharged from Hospital on 21.2.2015, but she remained completely dependent due to paralysis in her right side in the body. Still she is paralysed and dependent on others for her daily activities. Before the incident she was working as an Academic Counselor in a reputed Company earning Rs. 35,556/- P.M.. On the FIR lodged with the police, a case under section 394, Indian Penal Code was registered. With the allegation that it was on account of gross neglect in duties of the TTE and the staff of the Railways, the complainant/Ms. Rati Tripathi met with a such life threatening serious incident and that there had been no security personnel to prevent said untoward happening, the complainants have filed this complaint before this Commission claiming total compensation of Rs. 99,40,000/-.

3. The opposite party/Railways have challenged the maintainability of this complaint in the Commission on the ground that in respect of the incident an offence has been registered under section 394, IPC and the case of the complainant falls under the definition of 'untoward incident' under section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and the provisions of section 13, 15 and 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the objection taken by the Railways is grossly misconceived, since, despite existence of section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989, provisions of section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 cast an additional embargo on the opposite party to bear the liability on account of any accident arising out of their negligence. Since there are two different remedies available under the two different provisions of law, the complainants are free to seek redressal under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also. The provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 do not exclude the complaint filed under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 especially in view of the fact that the Consumer Protection Act clearly postulates under section 3 that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record carefully.

5. Before reaching any conclusion, it is necessary to advert to the relevant provisions of t