LAWS(NCD)-2000-4-69

RAMESH CHANDRA BHATNAGAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 24, 2000
RAMESH CHANDRA BHATNAGAR Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complainant's appeal against the order dated 10.3.1997 passed in Case No.63/96 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratlam (for short the 'district Forum' ).

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : that the appellant purchased two reserved tickets No.26206 and 21664 for travelling from Ratlam to Indore in Awantika Express, 9061 Down. The appellant was allotted reserved seat No.15 in coach No.5374 on 11.1.1996. The appellant to take tea from the tea vendor at the railway platform lifted the shutter of window at Nagda Railway Station, which fell down as it was without spring and stopper as a result of which the appellant received grievous injury in two fingers of his right hand. The appellant complained and lodged the claim but no heed was paid, hence, he filed the complaint before the District Forum to claim the amount of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service in keeping the window without its shutter and spring. The respondent after notice raised a preliminary objection that the claim for such an accident falls within the purview of Sec.124 or 124a of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 (for short "railways Act"), and therefore, the jurisdiction to entertain and decide such application lies with the Railways Claims Tribunal established and constituted under the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (for short "rct Act") and the jurisdiction of the Consumer FORA is barred under Sec.15 of the RCT Act. The objection so raised found favour, hence, the complaint was returned to the appellant for its presentation before the Railways Claims Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. S. K. Menon, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that it was not a case of an accident as defined in Clause (a) of Sec.123 or untoward incident as defined in Clause (c) of Sec.123 of the Railways Act, hence the Railways Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint, for deficiency in service, therefore, the complaint was maintainable before the Consumer FORA, Counsel cited a decision of the National Commission in case of Union of India and Ors. V/s. Nathmal Hansaria and Anr., 1997 1 CPJ 20.