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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...