The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), under the leadership of Presiding Member Dr. Inder Jit Singh, has dismissed a revision petition filed by the Indian Railways, holding it accountable for a deficiency in service. The commission has directed the Railways to pay compensation to the complainant for stolen goods, harassment, and litigation expenses.
The case revolves around an incident where a complainant's purse was snatched while travelling on the Sarai Rohila Superfast Express from Bikaner to Delhi. The incident occurred when the train left Rewari railway station at around 4:45 AM. Despite the complainant's efforts to chase the thief, she was restrained by another person who seemed to be dressed like a train attendant. During this incident, all four doors of the coach were open, and no attendants, ticket collectors, or security guards were present.
The complainant filed a complaint, alleging negligence on the part of the Railways, which led to the theft. Both the district and state consumer disputes redressal commissions ruled in favour of the complainant, directing the Railways to pay compensation. The Railways filed a revision petition before the NCDRC, arguing that the incident fell outside the jurisdiction of consumer fora and should be dealt with under other statutes.
However, the NCDRC upheld the lower courts' decisions, stating that the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are additional to those available under other statutes. The NCDRC observed that the Railways, as a pan-India entity, could be held accountable in the district where the journey commenced, in this case, Bikaner.
The NCDRC further emphasized that if it is proven that loss, destruction, damage, or deterioration of goods occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or its employees, the Railways administration would be held responsible. The commission found the Railways deficient in service, citing violations of duties prescribed by the Railway Board, such as inadequate personnel, failure to close gates at night, allowing intruders in the coach, and not aiding the complainant in filing an FIR.
The Railways had argued that the complainant failed to seek help from other passengers and that the responsibility for the security of goods lies with the passengers themselves. However, the NCDRC upheld the decisions of the lower commissions and ruled in favour of the complainant, ordering compensation for the stolen goods, harassment, and litigation expenses.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
