Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member
Union of India through General Manager – Appellant
versus
Unni A. and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.533 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 23/04/2015 in Complaint No. 82/2013 of the State Commission Kerala)
Decided on 10.10.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 3, 19 – Railways Act, 1989 – Section 124, 124-A – Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – Sections 13, 13(1A), 15 and 28 – Jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal – Alternative Remedy – Deficiency in service – Death of deceased due to felling of tree within premises of platform – Establishment of claims tribunals under Railway Claims Tribunals Act does not in any way infringe upon or fetter additional alternative remedy available to ‘consumer’ to seek remedy by instituting ‘complaint’ for ‘deficiency in service or ‘unfair trade practice’ before Consumer Protection fora established under Consumer Protection Act – Consumer fora do have jurisdiction to deal with present case & consumer complaint cannot be dismissed on ground of lack of jurisdiction by consumer for a – Tree that fell was on old one & was in premises of platform & no precaution of cutting or pruning of said tree was taken by railways – Tree fell on coolie, S, injuring her finally leading to her death – SC correctly held that this amounts to negligence & deficiency in service on part of railways – No good reason to interfere with order passed by SC. (Paras 26 to 28)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
I.A. No.15313 of 2023
Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member.—This is an application for substitution of the legal representatives of Mr. Unni A and Shri K. P. Appa, respondents No. 1 and No. 4.
The legal heirs of Mr. Unni A. respondent No.1 are as under:
1. Kully, W/o Raman R/o Njaliparambil House, Chuduvulathur, Shornur,
Palakkad – 679121
(ii) Sudheesh R., S/o Late Shri Unni A.
R/o Njalilparambil House, Chuduvulathur, Shornur,
Palakkad – 679121
(iii) Sruthi R, D/o Late Shri Unni A,
R/o Chudalaparambu, Parappangadi, Ullanam The legal heirs of Mr. K.P. Appa, respondent no. 4 are as under:
i. Rajan S/o Shri K.P. Appa, R/o Njalil Parambil, Shoranur 1, Palakkad,
Kerala – 679121
ii. Gopalakrishnan S/o Shri K.P. Appa,
R/o Njalil Parambil, Shoranur 1, Palakkad, Kerala – 679121
iii. Bindhu, D/o Shri K.P. Appa, R/o Njalil Parambil, Shoranur 1, Palakkad,
Kerala – 679121
2. The application for substitution is allowed and the legal representatives of Mr. Unni A and Shri K.P. Appa are taken on record.
3. This appeal has been filed under
section 19 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 23.04.2015 of the State Commission in complaint no. 82 of 2013, whereby the complaint was allowed in part.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘railways’) and learned counsel for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainants’) and have perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 23.04.2015 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.
5. There is a delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal.
In the interest of justice and for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
6. The facts, in brief, of the case are that on 16.06.2013, when Smt. Sindhu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), aged about 35 years, who is wife of complainant no. 1 and mother of complainants no. 2 and 3 and daughter of complainants no. 4 and 5, was waiting for the train at the platform at Angadipuram Railway Station, a huge branch of the tree had fallen on her head and she was seriously injured. Immediately, the relative of Sindhu with the help of Railway staff, took her to A1-Shifa Hopsital at Perinthalmanna. On 25.06.2013 at 09.20 p.m., she succumbed to the injuries sustained. It is alleged that the accident had happened due to the negligence on the part of the Railways as it is the duty of the railways to provide safety to the passengers. It is further alleged that due to untimely death of Sindhu, the complainant no. 1 lost his wife and the complainants no. 2 and no. 3 lost their mother.
7. Being aggrieved, the complainants have filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
8. The railways contested the complaint by filing reply stating that the lady immediately rushed to the nearby private hospital AI Shifa in ambulance arranged by Railway accompanied by Shri Balachandran, Station Master Incharge. Sr. Divisional Medical Officer / Shoranul also reached the hospital and based on his recommendation ex-gratia was arranged and Shri M. N. Mohanan, Dy. Station Manager/Comml/Shorenur reached the hospital at 20.45 hrs and Rs.5000/- was disbursed. It is further stated that after the enactment of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the compensation for death and injury arising out of accident to train or untoward incident are to be filed before the Railways Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1989. The Specimen application Form for claiming compensation is attached here with for kind perusal and guidance. It also stated that the Section 123 of the Railways Act 1989 says that “in view of the definintion of ‘untoward incident’ provided under Sec. 123(C) of the Act, it is beyond any doubt that the compensation on accoun
Consumer Protection Act supplements & not supplants jurisdiction of Civil Courts or other statutory authorities.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Railway Claims Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over compensation claims for passengers who have accidentally fallen from a train, and ....
The liability of the railway administration to compensate for untoward incidents is strict and can be claimed by the legal representatives of a deceased dependent even after their demise.
Claims for third-party property damage due to motor vehicle incidents must be adjudicated by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, not consumer forums.
The court affirmed the applicability of strict liability in railway accident claims, establishing entitlement to compensation under the Railway Act for the dependents of a passenger who suffered fata....
The absence of a valid ticket does not negate the presumption of a passenger's bona fide status, and the Railway Administration is strictly liable for untoward incidents.
Mere absence of ticket does not negate bonafide passenger status; affidavit suffices to discharge burden. Falling from running train is untoward incident under no-fault liability, entitling dependent....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
