Skip to main content

Rail mugging victim’s kin to get Rs 10L


 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered the railways to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation within three months to the widow of a Delhi-based senior citizen who was allegedly drugged and robbed on a long-distance train in Uttar Pradesh in 1998. The man had a reaction to the drug and eventually died in hospital.

The railways were held guilty of negligence as the train attendant was asleep and medical help was provided late.

The commission also directed Northern Railway, Moradabad, to conduct an enquiry against a doctor, the railway conductor, TTE and an attendant and submit a report by next April.

Holding railway employees responsible for the death of R C Chopra, the senior citizen, the Commission said, "This is a case of negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of railway authorities. Had medical aid been given to the patient at Ghaziabad station itself, it could have saved the precious life of the deceased. It is well said that a stitch in time, saves nine. What are the duties of train conductor/coach attendant and TTE? All of them were sleeping and did not do the needful. Where was the doctor?"

The victim's wife, Nirmal Devi Chopra, had filed a complaint before the Commission in 2001. She alleged that on December 21-22, Chopra was travelling from Lucknow in the AC III tier compartment. She alleged that three miscreants came into the compartment, gave a cup of tea laced with poison to him and robbed him of his valuables and demand drafts.

The Chopra family stated that even though Chopra was found sick "at 7.25 am/8.25 am," he was given medical help only at 11.25 am. The train had halted at Ghaziabad station for over an hour, but no steps were taken. The family alleged that even in the hospital in Delhi, proper treatment was not administered. They iterated that a family of three was to travel in the same compartment with Chopra. However, they had cancelled their tickets owing to fog.

The Chopras said the tickets were re-sold to some unauthorized persons, and it might have been those who eventually attacked Chopra.

The railways, in their defence, said although a call was made for the doctor at Ghaziabad, no doctor could be arranged. They further said that at New Delhi, the message was sent to the police, and Chopra was immediately taken to hospital. "No unauthorized person entered the compartment. Under the said circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased might have consumed the Nitrazepam (drug) himself," they alleged.

The commission did not find substance in the defence. "It is surprising to note that the Railway department commits so many mistakes as well as the mistakes of defending their wrong officers. These persons are also responsible for giving seats illegally and unauthorisedly to the three unknown persons; for earning some illegal amount, they have played havoc with the life of a person," it said.

It further pointed out that no ambulance was called at Ghaziabad railway station and New Delhi railway station. "The patient was carried in a railway luggage trolley, i.e. thela. The railway staff was not sensitive and was discharging their duties in a 'happy-go-lucky' manner. Had it been a case of their near and dear [ones], things would have been otherwise. Flushing off the stomach by the doctors immediately could have saved the life of the deceased, irrespective of whether it is a case of murder or suicide," the commission said.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil