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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...