Bihar State Commission Awards Additional Remedies To Passengers Robbed And Stabbed On Train, Railways Liable For Failure To Protect Lives Of Passengers

Brief Facts:

Keshav and Rakesh were travelling from Gorakhpur to Motihari station from Train no. 407. At around midnight, when the train reached Balmikinagar station, a group of 5 to 6 robbers entered the compartment and began robbing passengers. The robbers hit a Lathi on Keshav's head and a gunshot on Rakesh's abdomen. The robbers fled as the train reached Siswa railway station. Later, the station master was informed about the incident, and first aid was provided to both Keshav and Rakesh. They eventually received medical treatment at Sadar Hospital Gorakhpur and were referred to a medical college hospital in Gorakhpur. Rakesh was ultimately admitted to the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, where he underwent surgery but faced ongoing challenges in performing daily activities, requiring assistance, and incurring substantial medical expenses. Subsequently, Rakesh and Keshav filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Motihari, East Champaran (“District Commission”), asserting that the railways failed to protect their lives and property, constituting a deficiency in service.

In response, the Railways contended that the consumer forum lacked jurisdiction and insisted that the matter should be decided by the Railway Claims Tribunal. They argued that the responsibility for passenger security rests with the GRP and the state police, and compensation from the Railways is only applicable in cases of accidents due to the fault or negligence of the Railways. The District Commission allowed the complaint and held that consumer courts exist in addition to the Railway Claims Tribunal. The District Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Complainants, along with Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Railways filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (“State Commission”).

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission noted that Section 123(C) of the Railway Act defines an "untoward incident" to include the making of a violent attack, commission of robbery or dacoity, among other events. Compensation for untoward incidents is addressed under Section 124-A of the same act, which mandates that, regardless of any wrongful act, neglect, or default on the part of the railway administration, compensation is payable for loss occasioned by the death or injury of a passenger resulting from such untoward incidents. In this regard, the State Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act serves as a special legislation designed to provide enhanced protection for consumers in various fields. The State Commission emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act's jurisdiction cannot be overridden, even if the Railway Act provides avenues for compensation. Further, the State Commission noted that the Railways, in their written statement, did not dispute the occurrence of the robbery, the complainants' bona fide passenger status, or the injuries sustained during the incident. This solidified the claims of Rakesh and Keshav.

Consequently, the decision of the District Forum was upheld and the Railways was held liable for deficiency in service.

Case Title: The Chairman, Railway Board and others vs Premshila Devi and others.

Case No.: Appeal No. 496 of 2009

Advocate for the Appellants: F.R. Malik

Advocate for the Respondents: Dr Chandra Shekhar Azad