Skip to main content

Indian Railways to pay Rs 15,000 to man whose bags were destroyed by rats

Indian Railways has been held deficient by a consumer forum here which directed it to pay Rs 15,000 compensation to a retired serviceman, whose bags were damaged by rats in a train.

New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked the Railways to pay the amount to Delhi resident R K Bansal.

"It has happened due to lack of proper maintenance of the compartment by the  loco shed staff where bogies are kept for cleaning and maintenance for further departure but they never bothered to care. Consequently this incident occurred which amounts to be deficiency on the part of Opposite Party (Railways) and lack of supervision of Railway authority," the forum's bench, also comprising its members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia, said.

The forum said that Bansal "unnecessarily suffered loss during journey due to lack of proper maintenance and the cleaning of the compartment".

"Thus, Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Northern Railway, is held responsible due to lack of proper maintenance at local shed staff or supervision lacking at big junction where hundreds of trains leave every day for journey in which lakhs of people travel for various destinations," the forum said.

Bansal had told the forum that he was travelling on October 8, 2013 by Kerala Express from New Delhi to Ernakulum.

During transit, his bag was damaged by rats in a running train and his clothes were torn into pieces.

Alleging negligence on the part of the competent Railway authority, he lodged a complaint with the forum seeking compensation of Rs 18,400 for damaged goods.

 Article referred: news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&ct2=us&usg=AFQjCNGiB1-0sKCCrWHBTQUq4HUEYbDAtQ&clid=c3a7d30bb8a4878e06b80cf16b898331&cid=52778594282489&ei=d6gAVLjwDMmJlAWO3YHQAw&url=http://www.firstpost.com/india/indian-railways-pay-rs-15000-man-whose-bags-destroyed-rats-1686385.html

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more