Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.34 seconds)

Vijay Bhargava vs Union Of India & Anr. on 24 November, 2023

19.    In addition to the above, the Appellant has also claimed that the case is within the scope of Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989 and thus he has right to claim compensation for accidental fall. In this regard, in addition to the above deliberations, since he sustained grievous injuries and contended that he was pushed and thrown out of the train by some unknown offenders, resulting in an untoward incident as defined under the Railways Act, 1989, the Consumer Fora lacks jurisdiction to hear such claims. This aligns with the principles outlined in UOI Vs. Ashok Shankar Sarkale and Ors. (Supra). As per Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, compensation is provided to passengers in cases of injuries/death due to 'untoward incidents.' Therefore, the claims arising from such untoward incidents are not within the scope for adjudication under Consumer Protection Law. Consequently, the second issue pertaining to claim with respect to the alleged untoward incident does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Govt. Of India Through General Manager, ... vs Ram Chabila on 28 September, 2016

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.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1