UNION OF INDIA Vs. NIVA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 154 of 2008 Union of India through Chairman, Railway Board Vs. Niva Agrawal by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) As there is delay of only one day in filing revision petition, delay stands condoned.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was travelling with his family members from Samastipur to Mumbai by train No. 1066 Darbhanga Lokmanya Tilak Express in 3rd AC Coach and their berths were 20, 21 & 22 and their ticket No. was 12964756, PNR No. 812-2501245. On 22.9.06, at about 6 A.M. in the morning near Satna Railway Station suddenly berth No. 18 fell on her which caused injury and she became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she felt severe headache and faintness. The clamp of berth No. 18 which was broken was repaired at Jabalpur and Atarsi Railway Station. At Jabalpur railway station, Railway doctor came and gave her medicine after charging Rs.50/- as fees. Due to swelling in the head, continuous pain and giddiness, she got treatment in G.T. Hospital, Mumbai and after return from Mumbai, she went to Government hospital, Tajpur, Distt. Samastipur from where she was referred to S.K.M.C.H. Muzaffarpur and still she is having treatment. She is an Advocate by profession, but not finding able to perform her duties. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP/petitioner, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint as framed was not maintainable and barred by limitation. It was further submitted that occurrence took place before arrival at Satna Railway Station which is not within the jurisdiction of the East Central Railway, but the authorities of East Central Railway has been impleaded as a party and in such circumstance, case was not maintainable due to defect of party. Allegation regarding injury to the complaint was also denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint. At the time of arguments, OP did not appear before District Forum and learned District Forum after hearing complaint allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards treatment and cost. Appeal filed by the OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.