VINAYA VILAS SAWANT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which requires consideration in this Revision Petition is: Whether a passenger after alighting from a train, while passing over the railway foot-over-bridge (FOB) is injured because of the collapse of the bridge (i.e., the FOB), would be a consumer entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? In our view, after purchasing a railway ticket, a passenger would be a consumer as he avails of the services of the Railways, including the use of platform, foot path, over bridges for ingress to and egress from train and, if there is any deficiency in service in providing defective ingress or egress which causes injury, then such a person is entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) IT is the say of the complainant that she, along with her husband, Mr.Vilas Sawant, met with an accident on 28.9.1992 when they were returning home from Ghatkopar to Jogeshwari via Dadar by train. After getting down from the train at Jogeshwari Station, at about 8.30 PM, when they were passing over the Railway FOB to reach Jogeshwari (East), suddenly one slab of the said railway FOB collapsed. As a result of this collapse, the complainant as well as her husband, along with several other passengers, fell on the railway track and sustained injuries. At the relevant time, it was raining heavily, which made matters worse. Some passengers even died due to the collapse of the FOB. The complainant and her husband were removed to the Cooper Hospital in an unconscious condition. Before she was removed to the hospital, her ornaments and belongings were robbed by some persons. It is her say that she suffered multiple injuries on her person as a direct consequence of the FOB collapse and steep fall from the FOB to the tracks. She remained under treatment in the hospital from 28.9.1992 till 6.11.1992. Thereafter, she was shifted to Nanavati Hospital on 7.11.1992 where she was under treatment till 21.1.1993.

(3.) ON account of the grievous suffered by the complainant, she approached the District Forum, Mumbai Suburban District, by filing Complaint No.210/1999. The District Forum dismissed the complainant on the basis of the majority opinion. However, one Member passed a specific order that the complainant was entitled to receive, in all, Rs.2,50,000.00 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the accident till realization, along with Rs.3000.00 as costs. Against that majority order, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.2209/2004 before the State Commission, Maharashtra. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal solely on the ground of bar of jurisdiction by referring to tion 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 and Sections 13(1)(a) and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Hence, the Complainant is in revision before us.