Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1304/2013

G.M. NORTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARAT BHUSHAN DINKAR - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jul 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 10.07.2015

 

First Appeal-1304/2013

 

1.     The General Manager,

          Northern Railway,

          Baroda House,

          New Delhi

 

2.       The Chairman

          Railway Board

          New Delhi                                                                 ….Appellants

 

Versus

 

Bharat Bhushan Dinkar

          D-227, Top Floor,

          Gali No. 4, West Vinod Nagar

          Delhi-92                                                               ....Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor - Member

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Salma Noor, Member

1.             This appeal is directed against order dated 25.09.2013 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in complaint case no. 976/12 titled as Bharat Bhushan Dinkar Vs. The General Manager.

2.             There was delay of 60 days in filing the appeal and the same was condoned vide order dated 03.11.2014 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5000/-.

3.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent travelled from Muzaffarpur Junction to Anand Vihar (in Delhi) on 21.08.2011 by Sapt Kranti Express, Train No. 12557, in coach S-9, 54UB vide ticket no. 72458768. The respondent got the ticket from Supreme Court Railway Ticket Counter, New Delhi. During his journey the respondent sustained injuries, due to loosely fitted broken cover of fan. He got first old (treatment) at Narkatiagunj Junction by Railway Doctor B.K. Choudhary and continued his journey. After reaching Delhi station he was examined by CMO Medical and Health Centre at Delhi High Court who referred him to R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi for further treatment, where he was diagnosed as case of fracture distal phalanx of middle finger & laceration to distal phalanx and ring finger. He underwent physiotherapy, X ray and follow up treatment. Alleging deficiency on the part of the OP/appellant, complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum-VI, New Delhi.

4.             The District Forum issued notice to the OP. OP appeared and filed reply and resisted the complaint on the point of jurisdiction. The OPs plea before the District Forum was that the complainant boarded train at Muzaffarpur which comes under jurisdiction of Eastern Railway and not under the Northern Railway. But the authorities of the Northern Railway had been impleaded as a party and in such circumstances case was not maintainable due to defect of party.

5.             The Ld. District Forum examined the appellants objection and rejected the same holding inter-alia as follows:

                “Indian Railway is one entity and only for efficient management of this organization it is divided in Nine Zones u/s 3 of Railway Act 1989. He suffered pain and inconvenience in whole journey till Delhi and in Delhi he got injury examined & got treated and Railway is directly responsible for injury sustained due to loose cover fan, to any person in journey anywhere. The facts speak for themselves in the case”.

6.             Holding Indian Railway deficient in service the District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and ordered opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- inclusive of litigation charges.

7.             Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the appellant has filed this appeal before this Commission.

8.             We have heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.             The appellant has filed the present appeal mainly on the ground of maintainability. It is submitted by the appellant that the respondent boarded the train from Muzaffarpur which comes under the jurisdiction of Eastern Railways. The contention of the appellant is that the respondent/complainant had to file the complaint for compensation against Eastern Railway and not against the Northern Railway. So the grievance can be redressed by the Eastern Railway only. We disagree with this plea of the appellant.

10.            In fact we also agree with the view of Ld. District Forum that the Indian Railway is one entity and only for the sake of efficient management of its organization it has been divided into 9 zones under section 3 of the Railway Act, 1989. The Railway Board is overall in charge of Indian Railway and whole Railway comes under its jurisdiction which has already been impleaded as a party. The respondent purchased the ticket for journey in question from Delhi and destination of journey was Delhi itself which comes under the jurisdiction of Northern Railway and the Railway controlled by Railway Board has to pay the compensation.

11.            In view of the above, we find no force in the submission of counsel for appellant and are not at all inclined to interfere in the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

                FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released in his favour as per rules.

                 A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be sent to the parties free of costs.

                File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)
President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member