UNION OF INDIA vs Manoj H Pathak

THIS Revision Petition has arisen out of the Order dated 3.5.95 of the Gujarat State Commission at Ahmedabad partly modifying the order of the District Forum and awarding compensation of Rs. 56,000/ - instead of Rs. 85,000/ - awarded by the District Forum together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.4.94 till realisation besides costs of Rs. 2,000/ -.

THE facts lie in a narrow compass and may be noticed. The Complainant and his parents had purchased tickets at Borivali and had reserved their seats in train No. 9011 known as Gujarat Express for travelling from Borivali to Ahrnedabad on April 27, 1991. Later on they decided to board the train from Bombay Central and paid excess fare from Bombay Central to Borivali. They occupied their seats which were reserved from Bombay Central. According to the complainant although all seats were reserved and occupied, 10 to 15 persons unauthorisedly entered at Dadar into the reserved compartment made fun of the persons who had reserved seats and forcefully and unauthorisedly occupied seats in the reserved carriage, that the complainant attempted to contact the ticket checker, conductor and police for help but without any success and that as the complainant had resisted against illegal entry of unauthorised persons they became violent and attacked the complainant by using abusive language resulting in the fracture of D -12 vertebral column as a result of which he is suffering from permanent disability. Alleging that it was the duty of the Railway Administration to see that no unauthorised persons/passengers enter into the reserved carriage and no criminal acts were committed in Railway carriage, the complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 85,000/ - due to negligence and deficiency in service of the Rail - way Administration. On being noticed, Railway Administration took the preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(l1)(d)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, that the alleged incident had taken place somewhere between Borivali and Palghar which falls under the Maharashtra State and hence the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try a dispute in relation to the incident which occurred in other State outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Forum and that the complaint relates to maintenance of law and order position in the Railways which is the responsibility of Ministry of Home Affairs i.e. the police and as such outside the purview of the Act. The opposite parties have not denied the booking details of the ''reservation of the complainant and his parents. The occurrence of the incident and the alleged injuries are, however, denied.

THE District Forum negatived the preliminary objections and held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The District Forum on facts and on appreciation of the evidence came to the finding that the incident as narrated by the complainant had taken place in Gujarat Express. Relying on the medical evidence the District Forum held that the complainant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10% and computed the total compensation payable to the complainant at Rs. 87,500 / - but as the complainant had restricted the claim to Rs. 85,000/ - me District Forum awarded Rs. 85,000/the together with interest and costs.

THE State Commission in the appellate order also rejected the preliminary objections raised by the Railway Administration. On merits the State Commission found no reasons to disbelieve the statements made by the complainant and his father in their oral testimony recorded by the District Forum which are supported by medical evidence. The State Commission considering the evidence as a whole agreed with the view taken by the District Forum that the incident as narrated by the complainant had taken place and he was injured in this incident. The State Commission then dealt with the evidence of Dr. Hiran P. Maniar that as a result of compression fracture, the complainant has permanent disability of 10% for body as a whole. The State Commission determined the compensation payable to the complainant and reduced the compensation to Rs. 56,000/ -. We have gone through the records of the case and considered the oral submissions made by the Counsel for the revision petitioners and the respondent who appeared in person at the time of hearing. There is a concurrent finding of fact both by the District Forum as well as the State Commission that the incident as narrated by the complainant had taken place and he was injured in the incident. The evidence of Dr. Hiran P. Maniar established that as a result of compression fracture of D -12 Vertebra, the complainant has permanent partial disability of 10% for the body as a whole. The assessment of compensation by the State Commission is on sound principles in ascertaining the quantum and calls for no interference. The main submission of Mr. V.V. Bagga, the learned Counsel for the Railway Administration is that the maintenance of law and order in the Railway premises and compartments is the responsibility of Ministry of Home Affairs i.e. the Police Department and thus outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act. It is not in dispute that the complainant had hired services of Railway Administration for consideration and if there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration, then it is a consumer dispute within the scope and ambit of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The complainant was entitled to be carried safely in the train upto its destination in the reserved compartment. However if any person enters into any reserved compartment unauthorisedly, then besides being liable for criminal prosecution he can be removed from the Railway compartment by any Railway servant or by any of the person whom such Railway servant may call to his aid (see Section 147(2) of the Railways Act, 1989). The Railway Administration neglected in checking the entry of unauthorised persons in the reserved Railway compartment and then failed to remove them forcibly for which they are duly empowered by the statute. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Forum or the State Commission. This Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs which we fix at Rs. 1,000/ -. Revision Petition dismissed.