1.      This complaint has been filed by the complainants Puran Chand Aggarwal & Anr.  against the opposite parties Union of India and others.

2.      Brief facts as given in the complaint are that the deceased Sanjay Aggarwal was commuting from Delhi to Kannur, Kerela in Train No.12618, Mangla Lakshyadeep Express.  He booked a regular ticket vide PNR No.2542920887 allocated Berth No.17ⁱⁿ 3-tier Air Conditioned coach No.B4 for travelling from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Kannur.  He paid fare amounting to Rs.2685/- to opposite party No.1 and 2.  During the course of journey the train in which Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal was travelling halted at Manmad Railway Station at Maharashtra at about 6:00 a.m. on 07.02.2016.  The deceased Sanjay Aggarwal who had already spent the entire night in the train, got down at Manmad Railway Station to buy some snacks. Having bought the snacks, late Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal started boarding the coach in which he was travelling.  When he was still in the process of boarding the train, it started moving all of sudden without any prior announcement or without a whistle or bell having been given or flag having been shown by any railway official.  As a result, Late Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal who could not have anticipated a sudden movement of the train from the platform without any prior announcement and without any prior indication flag, whistle or signal, lost his balance and fell in the space between the train and the platform and received grievous injuries due to the said sudden fall.  The deceased was admitted in the hospital and his parents informed and before they reached the hospital they were informed that their son Sanjay Aggarwal had succumbed to injuries which he had sustained in the above referred accident. 

3.      Late Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal at the time of his death was employed with Nuan Gems and Jewellery  Johri Bazar, Jaipur and was receiving a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month.  It has been stated in the complaint that he was planning to start his own business of trading gems and jewellery in near future. The annual income of late Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal at the time of his death was Rs.2,40,000/-, it has been mentioned in the complaint that making 30% addition to future prospects in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balram Prasad Vs. Kunal Saha (2014) 1 SCC 384, and assuming in terms of the said decision, that he would have lived atleast upto the age of 70 years, his potential income till the time of his natural death would have been Rs.1,12,32,000/-.  After making deductions of one third of his income on account of his personal expenses, the contributions of Late Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal to his family, in his lifetime would have been atleast Rs.74,88,000/-.  The complainants have claimed the aforesaid amount as pecuniary damages from the opposite party no.1 and 2.  The complainants have claimed in total Rs.1,09,88,000/- (rupees One Crore Nine Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand Only) as compensation, as detailed herein below:

4.      The complainants have prayed for the following relief:-

“a.     Award compensation amounting Rs.1,09,88,000/- (Rupees One crore Nine Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand only), in favour of complainants and against opposite party No.1 and 2;

b.      Award litigation expenses amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac) in favour of the complainants and against opposite party No.1 and 2;

c.       Grant any further or alternative relief and pass any such order as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the complainants on maintainability of the present complaint.

6.      The learned counsel for the complainants argued that the present complaint case is maintainable before the consumer fora in the light of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein it is provided that a complainant can seek alternate remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The learned counsel further stated that Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 though provides for such claims, but this Commission has been deciding such cases under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Inspite of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, this Commission has decided many similar cases and has granted relief.  To support his assertion the learned counsel mentioned the judgment of this Commission passed in First Appeal No.451 of 2015, Western Railway Vs. Vinod Sharma, decided on 18.01.2017 (NC), wherein this Commission has not accepted the assertion that this Commission does not have the jurisdiction in the light of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and has granted relief to the complainants.  It was requested that the complaint may be admitted and notice be issued.

7.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainants and have perused the record.  Section 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987 bars the jurisdiction of other courts/authorities including the consumer fora. This section reads as follows:-

“15.  Bar of jurisdiction.- On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to matters referred to in [sub-sections (1) and (1A)] of section 13.”

8.  From the above, it is clear that this bar is in respect of matters referred to in [sub-sections (1) and (1A)] of section 13 which reads as follows:-

  “13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal –

(1)   The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act,-

(a)     relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-

(i)  compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;

(ii)  compensation payable under section 82A of the Railways Act* [*Ed- For section 82-A, see The Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890).The Indian Railways Act, 1890 (9 of 1890) has been repealed by the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)] or the rules made thereunder; and

(b)   in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.

[1(1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under section 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder.]”

9.      From the above, it boils down to the fact that, in effect, this section relates only to cases under Section 124A of the Indian Railway Act 1989. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to examine the definition of accident and Section 124A of the Indian Railway Act 1989. Concerned sections are reproduced below:-

      “The Indian Railways Act, 1989

       123. Definitions.- In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-

     (a) “accident” means an accident of the nature described in section 124;

     (b) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of a deceased passenger, namely:-

     (i)  the wife, husband, son and daughter, and in case the deceased passenger is unmarried or a minor, his parent;

     (ii)  the parent, minor brother or unmarried sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter-in-law and a minor child of a pre-deceased son, if dependant wholly or partly on the deceased passenger;

     (iii)       a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter, if wholly dependant on the deceased passenger;

      (iv)      the paternal grandparent wholly dependant on the deceased passenger.

      [(c)    “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 on 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.]

        124.  Extent of liability. – When in the course of working a railway, an accident occurs, being either a collision between trains of which one is a train carrying passengers or the derailment of or other accident to a train or any part of a train carrying passengers, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or has suffered a loss to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of a passenger dying as a result of such accident, and for personal injury and loss, destruction, damage or deterioration of goods owned by the passenger and accompanying him in his compartment or on the train, sustained as a result of such accident.

              Explanation- For the purposes of this section “passenger” includes a railway servant on duty.

         [124A.  Compensation on account of untoward incident.-  When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway  administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to, a passenger as a result of such untoward incident:

                Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to-

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) Self-inflicted injury;

(c) His own criminal act;

(d) Any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) Any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.”

10. A simple reading of these sections reveals that the accidents and untoward incidents are specified in these sections that would be covered as subject matter of Railway Claims Tribunal where the jurisdiction of other courts/authorities would be barred.  In the present case the passenger has fallen from the running train as the train started moving without any warning as the passenger was embarking upon it.  This case is clearly covered under Section 124A read with Section 123 (C)(2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989.  As cases being covered under Section 124 and Section 124A are covered under the jurisdiction of the Railways Claims Tribunals, therefore, Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 barres the jurisdiction of all other courts and authorities.  In my view, other courts and authorities, will include consumer forum as well.  Thus, the jurisdiction of the Commission is barred under Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 to entertain the present complaint.  The case cited by the learned counsel viz Western Railway Vs. Vinod Sharma (supra) is on a different footing because in that case the accident had happened when the passenger had got down from the train and was proceeding towards the exit of the station when a plank/sleeper fell down on the head of the passenger.  Thus, the accident in the cited case is not covered under the definition of either “accident” or “untoward incident” of a passenger falling from the train during the course of operation of the train and hence the cited case is not of any help to the complainant. Clearly, the case of the present complaint is on a different footing where passenger fell from the train and the case is covered under the definition of “untoward incident” where the Railways Claims Tribunal has the jurisdiction and jurisdiction of other courts and authorities is clearly barred.

11.    Based on the above examination, I am of the view the present complaint case is not maintainable before this Commission in the light of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.  Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed as being not maintainable before this Commission.  Liberty is granted to the complainants to file the claim before the Railways Claims Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, if so advised.