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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

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...