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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more