JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Smt. Nirmal Devi Chopra, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.35.00 lakhs for the deprivation of the income that R.C.Chopra, her deceased husband, would have earned during his balance life span, Rs.10,00,000/- for widowhood and lack of consortium suffered by the complainant, due to being widowed prematurely and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for the death and bereavement suffered by the four daughters and their families. 2. Sh.R.C.Chopra, died while he was travelling in Lucknow Mail, AC-III Tier, in the night falling between 21st -22nd December, 1998, due to deficiency in the service and for non-compliance of the rules on the part of the administration and employees of the Northern Railways, the Doctors and Staff of Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi. He was allotted berth No.15 by the Train Conductor/Coach TTE, Lucknow. Due to fog, the train was running late. On 23.12.1998, at about 7.30AM, it transpired that an unknown passenger (Late Sh.R.C.Chopra), was admitted in an unconscious condition in the above said hospital at 11.25 hrs by Government Railway Police, New Delhi Station on 22.12.1998. His son-in-law, identified him. Sh.R.C.Chopra, passed away, on 24.12.1998 at about 10.50 hrs, without regaining consciousness. The cause of his death was shown as (i) unknown poisoning (ii) pontine Haemorage. The patient was brought by the police from the Railway Station. The autopsy report mentions the cause of death due to Nitrazepam and acute adverse effect thereof happening subsequently. Subsequently, it also came to light that R.C.Chopra was looted off all his cash and Demand-drafts. His briefcase, along with suit-case, was delivered in an open condition to the family by Government Railway Police, New Delhi. The brief-case contained few documents only. 3. The main grouse of the complainant is that no medical aid was given to the patient, on the way. The train halted at Ghaziabad Station for over one hour, for this purpose and no steps were taken. Memo was given but Railway DMO or any other Doctor did not attend the patient. Improper and inadequate medical aid was given at the Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi. It also transpired that one, Mr. H.M.Behal, along-with his wife and son was to travel from Lucknow to Delhi. He held reserved accommodation for three persons. However, due to thick and foggy weather, he abandoned his plan to travel by this train and got refund for his tickets. Their tickets were treated as on-issued by the Reservation Office at Lucknow and were re-sold to some unauthorized persons, perhaps those persons who were travelling, robbed off R.C.Chopra of his cash and demand-drafts. Those three unauthorized persons travelled in the train, while working in cahoots with the reservation staff and the TTE. The said miscreants gave tea to the deceased, after making friendship with him. The tea was heavily laced with Nitrazepam, which induced deep sleep to the victim. No medical assistance was given to the patient. After their arrival, in New Delhi, the TTE and the Coach Attendant left the patient in lurch. They did not swing into action. No ambulance or doctors were arranged by the Railway authorities at the New Delhi Railway Station. The empty rake of the train was shunted into the yard and washing lines from where Sh.Chopra was carried in a luggage trolley to the Sucheta Kriplani Hospital by the GRP, New Delhi at 11.30 hrs. The Railway authorities did not make any attempt to identify those three miscreants. Their identity was never established. 4. The deceased was an affluent and influential person and his relatives would have taken him to a superior medical hospital, if they were intimated in time. Immediate medical help would have saved the life of the deceased. It is alleged that the Railway authorities washed off their hands from the medical emergency. The deceased was aged about 65 years and was physically very active and mentally alert, who, could have lived upto age of 85 years. His grand-father lived upto the age of 95 years. The deceased was having high income. His declared income was Rs.6,66,790/-, he was paying income tax of Rs.1,37,069/- for the year 1998-99. The deceased had declared an income of Rs.6,00,000/- in the year 1998, which was, in addition to his declared income in the regular Income Tax Returns. DEFENCE : 5. The Opposite Parties have enumerated the following defences in their written statement. The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, through its Sections 13,15 and 28, strikes a snap over the jurisdiction of other Tribunals. The Railway Claims Tribunal has got the executive jurisdiction to try this compensation case. In this case, best efforts were made to call the Railway Doctors at Ghaziabad Railway Station, but could not arrange due to short stoppage. When the train arrived at New Delhi Railway Station, the message was conveyed to the police and the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital. As such, there is no deficiency on the part of the Railways. A message was sent to the New Delhi Railway Station that a passenger was lying in a coach in an unconscious condition. The deceased was admitted in ICU. It is explained that the coach of Lucknow Mail, wherein the deceased was travelling was locked from inside, as soon as the train left from Lucknow Station and remained under the watch and duty of Conductor and Attendant, upto New Delhi. No unauthorized person entered the compartment. The schedule stoppage of the train at Ghaziabad Railway Station is for two minutes only and during the stoppage also, necessary arrangements were made, for providing medical facility at Ghaziabad Railway Station and New Railway Station. Under the said circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased might have consumed the Nitrazepam himself. It is stated that from Ghaziabad, the train arrives at New Delhi, after about 40 minutes. 6. Both the parties have led evidence by way of filing their affidavit. The complainant has also filed affidavit of Shri H.M.Behal, which carries infinite value. 7. The principal argument advanced by the counsel for the OPs was that the consumer fora have no jurisdiction to try this case. He submitted that this Commission can not arrogate to itself, the powers which do not vest in it. He has invited our attention towards Sections 13 & 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, which are reproduced hereunder :- 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 Railway 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, damages, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or good entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway ; (ii) compensation payable under Sec. 82-A of the Railways Act 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-A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Sec.124-A 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 Sec. 124-A of the said Act or the Rules made thereunder.] (2) The provision of the [Railways Act, 1989] and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable for inquiring into or determining any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act. 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 the matters referred to in [sub-sections (1) and 1-A] of Sec.13. 8. He has also cited one authority reported in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council, AIR 1995 SC 1384. The relevant para runs as follows :- . The complaint in the instant case cannot be said to be in relation to any service hired or availed of by the consumer because the injury sustained by the consumer had nothing to do with the service provided or availed of by him but the fatal injury was the direct result of the accident, on account of which, he was thrown out of his seat and dashed against the iron handle of the seat in front of him. We, have, therefore, no manner of doubt that this case squarely fell within the ambit of section 165 of the 1988 Act and the Claims Tribunal constituted thereunder for the area in question had jurisdiction to entertain the same. 9. We have perused the above provisions of law and the above said authority. We are of the considered view that there lies no rub in entertaining this complaint because it does not fall under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. This case pertains to the erviceprovided by the Railways. Consequently, the arguments advanced by counsel for OP, have to be eschewed out of consideration. 10. Now, we turn to the facts of this case. The learned counsel for the complainant invited our attention towards the affidavit of Mr.Hari Mohan Behal. Mr.H.M. Behal was to travel in the said train. We have seen the reservation chart for AC-III Tier, which has been placed on the record. It clearly goes to show that R.C.Chopra was allotted seat No. 11, and Mr.H.M.Behal, Mrs.Manju Behal and Rohit Behal were allotted seat Nos. 14, 15 and 16. Mr.H.M.Behal, i.e. Hari Mohan Behal has filed an affidavit which goes to show that he, along with his wife Smt.Manju Behal and son, Mr.Rohit Behal, were to travel in this train. They had confirmed tickets. It was further stated on oath that it was height of winter season and the trains were notorious for late running due to thick foggy weather. He further stated that he cancelled his programme at the last moment and asked his driver to return the tickets and obtain the refund. He further stated that his driver returned the tickets and obtained a refund of 50% of the fare paid by him, as it was a last minute cancellation. 11. However, it is surprising to note that in the record of the Railways, it was argued that all of them had travelled. Their seats were not kept vacant, somebody had travelled, on their behalf. The learned counsel for OPs did not pick up a conflict with this contention. They did not state that Mr. H.M.Behal and his close relative had cancelled their seats. They have made a vain attempt to file frivolous defence in support of their case. 12. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that those three passengers must be miscreants who, after putting the complainant in an unconscious stage, robbed off his valuable belongings and went away. He contended that those persons must have given poison to the passenger for which the OP is liable. 13. The first deficiency is apparent on record. Three passengers did not travel, but they were shown to have travelled. From where, those three persons cropped up, dollops of mystery surround this case. No explanation of Conductor, T.T.E. was called. The attempt was made to whitewash the truth. 14. However, the other part of the story that the three miscreants came, gave a cup of tea, laced with poison and robbed off the passenger, is not worthy of credence. The possibility of the passenger committing suicide can not be ruled out. It is not this Commission duty to write definitions on invisible blackboards with non-existent chalk. However, the Conductor and the Assistant/Attendant, could not get knowledge about this incident, is the second deficiency, on their part. Their bizarre conduct is unfathomable. 15. The third deficiency on the part of OP is discernible. Memo has been placed on the record, which reads as follows :- MO/GZB, NDLS Through ASM, Mehrauli Please attend a patient in AC-3 Tier Coach No.15535 on Berth No.13 as passenger is serious ill by 4229 UP, Dt.22.12.98. Coach position is 13 from Engine. Sd/- Shiv Singh 22/12 CC: GZB Received by ASM, Inform to NDLS & CHC At 8.15A.M 16. The counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that the Railway administration was conscious about the serious condition of the deceased. The said Memo was sent from Mehrauli. Best efforts were made to call the Doctors at the Railway Station, Ghaziabad, but could not be arranged due to short stoppage of the train, i.e., for two minutes. Consequently, message was conveyed to the New Delhi Railway Station & GRP. After arrival at New Delhi, the complainant was admitted in the well-known hospital, i.e., Sucheta Kriplani Hospital by GRP staff. He received the best treatment in ICU. 17. This argument is a strawman, intended to divert our intention from the main issues. It came to light that a patient was lying sick, at about 7.25 AM/8.25AM. He could not get any medical aid till 11.25AM. This is a case of negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the Railway authorities. Para 3.35 of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual, Vol.I, enjoins upon the Railways to secure medical assistance to the sick passengers. No explanation is forthcoming, as to why did the train not halt at Ghaziabad? Had the medical aid been given to the patient at Ghaziabad Station itself, it could have saved the precious life of the deceased. It is well said that Stitch in Time, Saves Nine What are the duties of Train Conductor/ Coach Attendant and the TTE?. All of them were sleeping and did not do the needful. Where was the Doctor? Negligence is rust of soul that corrodes through all her best resolves. The Railway Department itself is trying to defend their own employees. The names of concerned employees, did not find mention in the written statement. As a matter of fact, those were the persons, liable for the death of late Sh.R.C.Chopra. The compensation should have been recovered from them. It is surprising to note that the Railway Department commits so many mistakes as well as the mistakes of defending their wrong officers. These persons are also responsible for giving the seats of Mr.H.M.Behal and his family members, illegally and unauthorisedly to the three unknown persons, for earning some illegal amount, they have played havoc with the life of a person. No Ambulance was called at the Ghaziabad Railway Station. No Ambulance was called at the New Delhi Railway Station. The patient was carried in a Railway Luggage Trolley, i.e. Thela. The Railway staff was not sensitive and was discharging their duties in a appy-go-luckymanner. Had it been a case of their near and dear, the things would have been otherwise. Flushing off the stomach by the Doctors immediately, could have saved the life of the deceased, irrespective of the fact, whether, it is a case of murder or it is a case of suicide. The train should have halted at Ghaziabad, itself. The person should have been removed in the Ambulance and be treated, immediately. The Great Shakespeare says, n persons, grafted in a serious trust, negligence is a crime In the lump, the higher authorities are prone to turn a Nelson eye to indiscipline, in the Department, rather than taking the bull, by horns. The case also stands proved under Section 123(c) and Section 124 A of the Railway Act. 18. We, therefore, allow the complaint, but the compensation demanded by the complainant is on the excessive side. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, we grant total compensation in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- amount be paid, within 90 days, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till its realization. 19. We, further, direct the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Muradabad, U.P, to make an enquiry against the Doctor at Ghaziabad, Conductor, T.T.E. and Assistant/Attendant, within a period of six months and file the report, with the Registrar of this Commission on or before 1st April, 2014. Disobedience shall tantamount to contempt of court. The original petition is disposed of, in the above terms.