The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that parties have alternate remedies available to them but they cannot claim compensation for the same incident twice. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant was travelling on a reserved berth when several unidentified persons boarded the train, attempted to snatch...
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that parties have alternate remedies available to them but they cannot claim compensation for the same incident twice.
Brief Facts of the Case
The complainant was travelling on a reserved berth when several unidentified persons boarded the train, attempted to snatch her purse, and threw her out when she resisted, causing severe injuries. She was hospitalised for a long time and later became paralyzed on her right side. The complainants blame the negligence of the train's TTE and railway staff for the incident and filed a complaint seeking Rs. 99,40,000 in compensation. The state commission,however, dismissed the complaint, following which the complainant appealed before the National Commission.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The railways argued that the complaint is not valid before the Commission because the incident is registered as an offence under Section 394 IPC and qualifies as an “untoward incident” under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. Therefore, they claimed the case should be handled under Section 124A of the Railways Act and related sections of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, making the complaint not maintainable.
Observations by the National Commission
The National Commission observed that the key issue is whether the State Commission was correct in refusing to entertain the complaint by directing the complainants to the Railway Claims Tribunal. It noted that in previous cases, including a similar matter decided by this Commission, the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy under Section 3, even if other laws, such as the Railways Act, lay out compensation mechanisms. The Commission highlighted that the consumer fora have jurisdiction in such cases, citing rulings like Rathi Menon vs. Union of India, where the Supreme Court emphasised that parties have alternative remedies but cannot claim compensation twice for the same incident. Based on this, the Commission held that the State Commission was wrong in dismissing the complaint, and the case was remanded back for a fresh decision on merit.
Case Title: Rati Tripathi & 2 Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
Case Number: F.A.No. 544/2016