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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
7 comments
Read more

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.
Post a Comment
Read more