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

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/

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.