State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Govt. Of India Through General Manager, ... vs Ram Chabila on 28 September, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 03 / 2015
1. Union of India
through General Manager, Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur
2. Station Superintendent
Junction Basti, Basti
3. Station Superintendent
Lucknow Charbagh Junction, Lucknow
4. Divisional Rail Manager
Lucknow Division, Lucknow
5. Station Superintendent
Haldi Road Junction (Haldi)
Pantnagar
......Revisionists / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Ramchhabeela S/o late Sh. Chandrasen
R/o T.D.C. Colony, P.O. Haldi, Pantnagar
District Udham Singh Nagar
......Opposite Party / Complainant
Sh. Parag Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Revisionists
Sh. K.K. Rai and Sh. J.B. Goswami, Learned Counsel for the Opposite
Party
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 28/09/2016
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 54 of 2015, whereby the consumer complaint 2 filed by the opposite party - complainant was admitted by the District Forum for decision on merit and the District Forum has further directed that the consumer complaint be registered.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the revision petition are that the opposite party - complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, alleging therein that on 14.04.2012, his brother Sh. Ram Avtar Kahar left for Gorakhpur, his permanent place of residence vide train No. 13020 (Bagh Express) by purchasing general ticket No. D-79372657 from Haldi Road Junction to Deoria (Sadar) Junction. At the time of undertaking the journey, the complainant's brother was hale and hearty. On 15.04.2012 at 11:00 a.m., the complainant received the information regarding death of his brother in the train during the course of journey and the complainant was told to reach the Railway Station, Basti and co-operate with the police. The complainant along with the family members reached Railway Station, Basti and after postmortem, received the dead body of his brother and thereafter the last rites of the deceased were performed. Vide application dated 26.09.2012 moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the complainant sought the certified copy of the documents relating to the inquiry in regard to the death of his brother, which were supplied to the complainant. After going through the documents supplied to the complainant, the complainant found that his brother got injured at Lucknow Charbagh Junction under suspicious circumstances and was alive till Badshah Nagar Junction. It was further noticed that the information regarding the passenger getting injured was forwarded by Lucknow Control, but no medical facilities were provided to the brother of the complainant at Railway Station, Basti and as per the Railways Act, his brother was also not taken down from the train, as a result whereof, his brother expired. It was also alleged that for want 3 of medical facilities on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant's brother had died in the coach itself. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.
3. The revisionists - opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant for filing the consumer complaint;
that no record is maintained with regard to the passengers travelling in general / unreserved coaches; that on 15.04.2012, Station Superintendent, Basti received an information on control phone that in train No. 13020, a person is lying in unconscious condition, intimation whereof was immediately given to Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Basti, G.R.P., Basti and R.P.F., Basti through Station Memo; that as soon as the train reached the station, the Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Basti checked the passenger and declared him dead, intimation whereof was given to all concerned; that the investigation of the matter was given to Assistant Sub-Inspector, Gorakhpur, who investigated the matter and found that the deceased fell from the berth meant for carrying luggage and his body started shivering and after some time, the passenger died; that the companion passengers had told that it appears that the deceased suffered hysterics and that the deceased was suffering from any disease, as the deceased was also carrying certain medicines; that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction in the matter; that the claim is admissible before Railway Claims Tribunal and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum firstly took up the matter of maintainability of the consumer complaint and vide impugned order dated 01.06.2015 admitted the consumer complaint for decision on merit and directed 4 that the same be registered. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the revisionists have filed the present revision petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionists at the first instance, agitated the question of territorial jurisdiction and submitted that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, so as to bring the consumer complaint before the said District Forum and that the District Forum has not considered this aspect of the matter and has wrongly entertained the consumer complaint. In support of his submissions, learned counsel cited the following decisions:
(i) Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited; IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC).
(ii) Hameed Vs. Indo Arab Travels and others; IV (2004) CPJ 215.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party - complainant submitted that since the deceased had purchased the ticket from Haldi Road Junction and had undertaken the journey from the said place and hence the part cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant at Haldi, which falls under the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar and, as such, the consumer complaint was very much maintainable before the said District Forum.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, we find no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionists and we are of the considered view that the District Forum, Udham Singh 5 Nagar had territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The reason being that the ticket for the journey undertaken by the deceased was purchased by him from Haldi Road Junction by paying the required fare charges and the deceased boarded the train from the said place. Therefore, it can not be said that no cause of action or part thereof has arisen in favour of the complainant at Udham Singh Nagar so as to bring the consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. In the case of Sonic Surgical (supra), fire broke out at Ambala and compensation was claimed at Ambala. It was held that no part of cause of action arose in Chandigarh. Therefore, the State Commission, Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. In the case at hand, there is no such position and the journey was undertaken by the deceased from Haldi Road Junction, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. In the case of Hameed (supra), all transactions took place at Mumbai. It was held that no part of cause of action had arisen in Kerala and, as such, the State Commission, Kerala lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The said decision also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, for the reason that part cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant at Udham Singh Nagar and hence it can not be said that the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter.
9. Secondly, learned counsel for the revisionists argued that since the matter in question relates to untoward incident and hence the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint filed by the complainant.
610. "Untoward incident" has been defined under Section 123(c) of The Railways Act, 1989, which reads as under:
"untoward incident" means -
(1) (i) the commission of a terrorist act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(ii) the making of a violent attack or the commission of robbery or dacoity; or
(iii) the indulging in rioting, shoot-out or arson, by any person in or any train carrying passengers, or in a waiting hall, cloak room or reservation or booking office or on any platform or in any other place within the precincts of a railway station; or (2) the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers."
11. On the said point, learned counsel for the revisionists cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Union of India and another Vs. M. Adaikalam; [1993] 2 CPR (NC) 94 = II (1993) CPJ 145 (NC). In the said case, it was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint regarding deficiency in service arising from loss, destruction, damages, deterioration, non-delivery or delay in delivery of goods entrusted to Railway Administration for carriage. The case in hand does not relate to loss or damage of goods entrusted to the Railway for transportation. Learned counsel also cited a decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashok Shankar Sarkale and others; AIR 2006 Bombay 198. In the said case, the passengers were thrown out of train by anti-social elements. It was held that the compensation is to be decided by 7 Railway Claims Tribunal and none else and that the Consumer Forum is not empowered to decide such claim. In the present case, the deceased was not thrown out of the train and had fallen from the berth.
12. The incident in question can not be termed as "untoward incident", as there was no violent attack, terrorist activity or rioting involved and the deceased also did not fall from the train. The deceased had fallen from the berth and according to the complainant, the deceased died for want of proper medical facilities by the railway.
13. Learned counsel for the opposite party - complainant cited a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Nirmal Devi Chopra Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Railway Board (Rail Mantralay) and others; IV (2013) CPJ 402 (NC). In the said case, the passenger travelling in train died due to improper medical aid. It was held that the case pertains to "service" provided by Railways and the complaint does not fall under Section 13 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and that the complaint is maintainable. Learned counsel also cited another decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Gulshan Kumar Mendiratta and others Vs. Union of India and another; I (2011) CPJ 268 (NC). In the said case, the deceased was hit on the head with the milk drums hanging outside the compartment's ventilator bar and died on the spot. It was held that the incident is not an untoward incident and the application for compensation under Section 124A of The Railways Act, 1989 does not bar jurisdiction of Court or other authority.
14. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the consumer complaint filed by the opposite party - complainant was 8 very much maintainable and the District Forum has rightly entertained the same for decision by merit vide impugned order, which does not call for any interference. The revision petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
15. Revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K