National Consumer Disputes Redressal
D.C. Mittal & Ors. vs Union Of India, Ministry Of Railway, on 28 May, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 18 OF 2009 1. D.C. MITTAL & ORS. S/o. Late Arjun Singh Mittal, R/o. 3/42, Vishnupuri, Kanpur 2. Mrs. Vimla Mittal Wife of Sri D.C. Mittal, R/o. 3/42, Vishnupuri, Kanpur. 3. Mrs. Anita Mittal W/o. Late Dr. Anurag Mittal, R/o. 3/42, Vishnupuri, Kanpur, 4. Km. Anupriya Mittal Daughter of Late Dr. Anurag Mittal, R/o. 3/42, Vishnupuri, Kanpur, 5. Km. Anuja Mittal, Daughter of Late Dr. Anurag Mittal, R/o. 3/42, Vishnupuri, Kanpur. ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Railway, Service of Summons On its Secretary, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. Northern Central Railway, Service of Summons on its General Manager, Allahabad 3. Govt. Railway Police, Service of Summons On its Additional Director General, Having its Headquaters at 5th Floor, Indira Bhavan, Ashok Marg, Luckonw. ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate with
Ms. Aprajita Mukherjee, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Rohit Jain, Advocate with
Mr. Anupam Saxena, Division Commercial
Manager, Allahabad Division
Dated : 28 May 2015 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
1.Late Dr. Anurag Mittal boarded train No.2451, Shram Shakti Express from Kanpur Central to New Delhi in the night intervening 27/28-08-2007. He was travelling in Coupe-C of First Class AC Coach No.NCO3002, against a valid reservation. Dr. Mittal was scheduled to visit his sisters in New Delhi on 28-08-2007, on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and thereafter he was scheduled to take a flight to Bagdogra at 10.00 A.M. on the same day. Since Dr. Anurag Mittal did not reach the house of his sisters in the morning of 28-08-2007 his family members and relatives reached New Delhi Railway Station to inquire about him and were told that the train had already arrived at its scheduled arrival time. The matter was then reported by his father-in-law to the police at Kanpur Central Railway Station. Later, his dead body was recovered from near railway track at Bhupatpur in Uttar Pradesh. It was found that he had been murdered, in the running train, in order to commit theft of the currency and valuables he was carrying with him.
According to the complainants who are the parents, wife and children of late Dr. Anurag Mittal, there was only one more passenger in Coupe-C on that date, he having booked accommodation in the name of B.K. Singh from Lucknow on 26-08-2007. Later it was discovered that no such person was residing in Lucknow at the address given at the time of booking. It was concluded by the police that Dr. Anurag Mittal was murdered by the co-passenger travelling under a fake name B.K. Singh. According to the complainants the murder of late Dr. Anurag Mittal could be possible on account of the negligence on the part of the railway officials since neither the doors of the coach were kept latched when the train was on the move nor the end doors of the vestibule coach were kept locked between 10.00 P.M. to 6.00 A.M.. This is also the case of the complainants that no conductor, attendant or security personal was present in the coach when the unfortunate incident took place. The complainants are, therefore, seeking compensation amounting to Rs.11,53,51,357/- from the opposite parties.
2. In their reply the opposite parties Nos.1&2 have admitted that Dr. Anurag Mittal was travelling in the Air Conditioned First Class Coach of Shram Shakti Express in the night intervening 27/28-08-2007 from Kanpur to Delhi and there were only two passengers in Coupe-C of the aforesaid coach one of them being Dr. Anurag Mittal and the other being a person travelling under a fake name B. K. Singh. It is also admitted in the reply that Shri B.K. Singh has been arrested and is facing trial for committing murder of Dr. Anurag Mittal. The opposite parties, however, have denied any negligence on the part of the railway officials in performance of their duties. It is stated in the reply that the conductor of the Coach Shri Nizamuddin Khan, who was taking care of two coaches on that day had, after checking the ticket advised Dr. Anurag Mitttal and the other passenger travelling in Coupe-C to lock the door of the Coupe from inside and the said advice was accepted by Dr. Anurag Mittal who locked the Coupe door from inside. It is further stated in the reply that after ensuring that the doors of the Coupe were locked from inside the conductor locked the main gate of the Coach from inside which were opened by him only at Delhi. It is further stated that during the course of the journey the train conductor made 4-5 visits to the Coach in which Dr. Anurag Mittal was travelling but no untoward incident was noticed by him. It is also admitted in the reply that the train did not stop anywhere before reaching Delhi.
3. The complainants have filed affidavit of one of them namely Smt. Anita Mittal who has stated that late Dr. Anurag Mittal was a prominent medical practitioner, who travelled in Shram Shakti Express in the night intervening 27/28-08-2007 in Coupe-C of the First Class A/C Coach No.NCO3002. The opposite party has filed three affidavits by way of evidence. In his affidavit Shri Sudip Chatterjee, AC Mechanic has inter alia stated that in the night intervening 27/28-08-2007 he was working as AC Mechanic in AC-1 Coach of Shram Shakti Express and no untoward incident was noticed by him in any Coupe. In his evidence on affidavit, Mr. Nizamudin Khan has inter alia stated that in the night intervening 27/28-08-2007 he was on duty as conductor in AC Coach No.1 and AC Coach No.2 of Shram Shakti Express. He further stated that after checking the tickets of Dr. Anurag Mittal and Mr. B.K. Singh he advised them to lock the gate of the coupe from inside and the gate was locked accordingly by Dr. Anurag Mittal. He further stated that during the journey, four-five rounds of AC 1 Coach was taken by him but no untoward or suspicious act was noticed by him. He also stated that he had also locked the main gate of AC1 and AC2 Coach from inside and the said doors were opened by him only at Delhi.
4. The case of the complainants is based primarily on the instructions issued by Northern Railways to the railway staff regarding responsibility of railway staff for the safety of AC First Class. The duties of the train conductors in a First AC Coach, as per the aforesaid instructions include the following:
"11. He shall ensure that the doors of the coaches are kept latched during run of the train and open them as and when required by the passengers.
12. He shall keep the end doors of the vestibule coach locked during 22.00 hrs to -6.00 hrs. to prevent unauthorized entry."
It would, thus, be seen that the doors of the AC First Class Coach are to be kept latched when the train is on the move unless required to be opened by a bonafide passenger and the end doors of the vestibule coach have to be kept locked between 10 P.M. to 6 A.M., the purpose being to prevent any unauthorized entry in the AC First Class Coach. Since the learned counsel for the complainants contended before us that the end doors of the vestibule coach mean the four gates two each on the either side of the coach and meant for the ingress and egress of the passengers, which were required to be kept locked from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M. and further contended that had the said four entrance doors of the coach been locked by the TTE from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M., it would not have been possible for the murderer to throw Dr. Anurag Mittal out of the Coach when the train was on the move, we directed the opposite party to file affidavit of a senior railway officer explaining which are the doors of the coaches which are to be kept latched in terms of the clause 11 of the instructions issued by railway and which are the end doors of the vestibule coach which are to be locked during 10 PM to 6 AM in terms of clause 12 of the said instructions. We also directed the opposite party to file photographs and sketch of First Class AC Coach of Shram Shakti Express as on 27/28-08-2007 duly supported by an affidavit. In compliance of our direction the opposite party has filed affidavit of Shri Ram Sharan Chaturvedi, Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, DRM Office, North Central Railways, Allahabad as well as the affidavit of Shri Ajit Kumar Singh, Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, DRM Office, North Central Railway, Allahabad. In his affidavit, Mr. Ram Sharan Chaturvedi stated that as per the rule 11, the doors of the coaches are locked by latches by the AC Coach attendant when the train is on the move and he opens them for occupation as and when required. In his affidavit, Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh has stated that since the coach No.NCO3002 of Shram Shakti Express has been sent to workshop on April 19, 2015 the photographs of a similar coach have been taken and location of various doors of the said coach have been shown in the sketch which is Annexure B to his affidavit. The sketch annexed to the affidavit of Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh shows that AC First Class has four main entrance doors one each near the lavatory and two vestibule doors one each at the two end of the coach. We also find from a perusal of the sketch that there are two gallery doors in the coach one from each end. In addition to the aforesaid door, every coupe has its own door called coupe door. It is also evident from a perusal of the sketch and the photographs that the vestibule door is in fact a shutter which can be easily locked by the railway officials in the night. We, thus, find that the instructions issued by the Northern Railways when viewed in the light of the sketch and photographs of the coach, require the vestibule door, which is a shutter that can be easily locked and which has to be kept locked from 10 PM to 6 AM. It is, through these vestibule doors that one can move from one coach to other. Therefore, the purpose behind locking the said doors from 10 PM to 6 AM is to ensure that no one including an unauthorized occupant is able to move from one coach to other coach without permission of the concerned TTE who would have the key of the lock to be put on the vestibule door with him between 10 P.M. to 6 A.M.. We also take note of the fact that the instructions required the TTE to lock the end doors of the coach during night and it is the vestibule doors which are on the end of the coach. Therefore, the reference to the end doors in the instructions is obviously to the two vestibule doors of the coach and not to the four main entrance doors.
5. Even otherwise, it would be illogical to lock all the four main entrance doors of the coach during night since in that case, if the train has a halt between 10 PM to 6 AM, the TTE would have to open at least two such doors when the train halts at a railway station between 10 P.M. to 6 A.M., which may not be practically possible considering that if one TTE is having charge of two coaches, he would have to move from one end of the first coach under his charge to the other end of the second coach in his charge, in order to open the locks of four doors, which may not be practical if the halt at the railway station is brief. More importantly in case there is a fire or an accident between 10 PM to 6 AM, it may not be possible for the passengers to get out of the coach, through the main entrance doors, and their life may be in danger because of locking of these main entrance doors.
6. As far as the four main entrance doors of the coach are concerned, the conductor was required only to latch them in the night. It would be immaterial whether the said main entrance doors were actually latched by the coach conductor / coach attendant in the night or not, since not only Mr. B.K. Singh, who allegedly murdered Dr. Anurag Mittal but any passenger travelling in that coach could have opened the latch of the main entrance doors from inside and pushed Dr. Anurag Mittal, whether dead or alive, out of the coach. As far as the vestibule doors of the coach are concerned, though according to the conductor Nizamuddin Khan, he had locked the same during night, even if we presume that the said vestibule doors were actually not locked during night, there is no reasonable possibility of the murder of Dr. Anurag Mittal having become possible on account of the said vestibule doors not being locked. The culprit could have murdered Dr. Anurag Mittal either in the coupe in which he was travelling or in the coach in case he came out of the coupe to use the lavatory in the night. The vestibule door leads from one coach to other. No-one would dare to drag the dead-body of a person from one coach to other coach through the vestibule door, since he is likely to be caught either by a passenger or by the conductor or attendant of the coach, who would be present in the adjoining coach, if not in the same coach. Dr. Mittal or his dead-body could have been pushed out of the train only through one of the four main entrance doors of the coach. Since the said doors were not required to be latched during night it would be difficult to held the conductor or any other railway official responsible for the murder of Dr. Anurag Mittal. In nut shell, it cannot be said that had the vestibule doors been locked and main entrance doors been latched from inside during night, murder of Dr. Anurag Mittal would not have been committed. In our opinion, the culprit took the risk of the committing murder of Dr. Anurag Mittal only because he knew that he would be able to throw him or his dead-body out of the coach in which he was travelling, through one of the four main entrance doors of the coach, taking advantage that neither conductor nor any railway official were present in the coach at that time and the other passengers travelling in that coach were sleeping in their respective coupes. The Rules did not require continuous presence of a railway official or a police official, throughout the night journey nor will it be reasonably practicable to require the Railways to make such an arrangement even in a first class coach. In these circumstances, it would be difficult for us to say that the tragic death of late Dr. Anurag Mittal is attributable to any negligence on the part of the railway officials.
7. Since no negligence or any other deficiency in the service rendered by the opposite parties to late Dr. Anurag Mittal has been established, the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER