VIJAY BHARGAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the Order dtd. 2/4/2019 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred as "the State Commission"), in Consumer Complaint No. 98 of 2009, wherein the Complaint was rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the Complainant are that on 4/5/2007, the Appellant was traveling to New Delhi from Kolkata by Howrah-Delhi Rajdhani Express in AC-II class. On 5/5/2007, when the train approached Shivaji Bridge Railway Station, New Delhi, the Appellant went to use washroom near the entrance of the Coach. When he stepped out, he saw an unruly crowd of about 10-12 people who did not appear to be passengers of the same coach. He tried to make way for other passengers waiting to use the washroom and return to his seat. Suddenly, he was pushed by the crowd towards the main door of the coach which was negligently left unlocked by the Respondent's staff on duty and open ajar. Consequently, he was thrown out of the train and fell on the railway track. After being found injured on the railway tracks, the Police first took him to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi and informed the relatives. The relatives of the Appellant thereafter admitted him to the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi with injuries to his chest, pelvis, left arm and left foot. As the left foot was severely crushed with loss of skin and tissue, the doctors were constrained amputate his left leg from below the knee. The entire treatment, including post operative stay in the hospital lasted for over a month and the Appellant was eventually discharged on 7/6/2007. After discharge, he was fitted with a prosthetic limb. He had to remain in Delhi for follow up medical checks and undergo physiotherapy and rehabilitation for several days to be able to carry out his daily routine with minimal help. His family members had also to travel from Kolkata and stay in Delhi till he was able to return to Kolkata. His daughter, who lives and works in USA also had to travel to New Delhi to assist her mother, who was battling cancer and him. She had to take leave from her work to travel to New Delhi and stay at a considerable expense. The cost of the stay and treatment at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, medicines, doctors fee, prosthetic limb etc, incurred by the Appellant totaled to Rs.10,59,774..00 Most of the original bills for Rs.8,78,151.00 towards hospital expenses, stay and treatment were reimbursable and submitted by him to his insurer M/s Genin India Pvt Ltd for applicable re-imbursement as per his medical claim with New India Assurance Company Ltd. He was reimbursed Rs.3,75,000,.00 the maximum payable by the insurer. He continues to require medication, physiotherapy, replacement of the prosthetic limb and accessories as necessary. He not only suffered the loss of his limb but he and his family underwent severe pain, emotional and mental trauma coupled with colossal expenses purely a result of negligence of the Respondent's staff in leaving the gate of the coach ajar, unsecured and unattended. His entire life is now an ordeal as he is inflicted with permanent disability. He is unable to regularly attend to his Company's matters, operations, meetings, and customers leading to loss in business. Although no amount of monetary compensation can be deemed sufficient for the loss of his leg, mental agony and trauma already undergone and will continue to be suffered lifelong on account the permanent disability suffered by him, he sought the following reliefs:

(3.) The OP in its written statement before the learned State Commission contended that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction in the case as per Sec. 13, 15 and 8 of the Railways Claim Tribunal Act and Ss. 123 and 124, 124-A and 125 of the Railways Act. Under Sec. 124-A of Railways Act, no compensation is payable to any such individual by the Railways, if the passenger suffered injury due to his foot Injury or his own criminal act. In terms of Sec. 125 of the said Act, remedy for such claims is only before Railway Claims Tribunal.