Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4469
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
N. K. Gupta, J
General Manager South Western Railway v. M. G. Kantikar
Revision Petition No. 123 of 2015
Concurrent factual determinations by lower fora are binding unless proven perverse, emphasizing transportation duty towards disabled passengers.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) - Revision petition against the order confirming the District Forum’s decision - Concurrent findings of facts not to be reassessed unless perverse or without jurisdiction established. Court's jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality and propriety of the order, in light of governing laws and existing regulations. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 13, 15)
(B) Deficiency in service - The obligation of transport service providers in accommodating passengers with disabilities is emphasized. Proper analysis of evidences indicates deficiency in service due to negligence in duty to assist elderly and disabled passengers. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 24)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the order of the District Forum which partly allowed the complaint of elderly and disabled passengers regarding non-allotment of lower berths despite guidelines suggesting accommodation for such passengers.
Findings of Court:
The evidences presented and District Forum's findings were upheld, emphasizing the TTE's negligence in managing reserved seating arrangements and responsibilities towards elderly passengers.
Issues: The revisions involved reassessing the findings of the lower fora and determining whether the National Commission could intervene based on jurisdictional misinterpretations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unless findings are perverse or without jurisdiction, concurrent factual determinations by previous forums are binding, reinforcing the standards for accommodating disabled passengers during transport.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition filed against previous orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. jurisdiction limitations regarding reassessment of evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. findings on deficiency in service towards senior citizens. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. upheld findings from district forum on negligence. (Para 10 , 12 , 15) |
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.10.2015 passed in Appeal No. 599 of 2013 by the Karnataka State Commission. This appeal was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 15.3.2013 in CC No. 364 of 2012 of the District Forum, Shimoga.
2. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the findings of the State Commission, in the impugned order, whereby the order of the District Forum was confirmed, is perverse, without jurisdiction, illegal and whimsical. It is submitted that the Foras below have failed to take into account the fact that when the reservations of the tickets are done availing the computerized facility, the seats are automatically allotted as per the availability and, therefore, contention that the lower births were not given to the Complainants, although both were senior citizens and the Complainant No. 1 was also a disabled person, has no merit and the findings on this count are, therefore, perverse. It is further argued that the Complainants had alighted on their own and the person on duty in that coach, following the guidelines of the Railway, had gone to wake them up when the train was about to reach at the destined place. He found that the Complainant had already alighted the train. It is argued that the findings to the contrary on this count are also perverse.
3. None had argued the matter on behalf of the Complainants and they have left it to the wisdom of this Commission. I have perused the file and have gone through the impugned order.
4. In execise of the revision jurisdiction this Commission is not required to re - assess and re - appreciate the evidences on record and substitute its own conclusion on facts especially when the findings on the facts are concurrent. This Commission can interfere with the concurrent findings of the Foras below only when the findings are perverse or Foras below have acted without jurisdiction. A finding can be said to be perverse when it is based on no evidences or based on conjecture or surmises, i.e. on the evidences which were not part of the record or where a material evidence on record is not taken into consideration. It has been so held by the Honble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) : IV (2011) SLT 303 : (2011) 11 SCC 269, has held as under:
'23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from S.21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under S.21(b) of the Act has been trans - gressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora'.
5. Again in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. v. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Others, (2016) III CPJ 27 (SC) : VI (2016) SLT 86 : (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286, the Honble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has hel
