2004 (4) TMI 609 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of State Commission to entertain the complaint
- Deficiency in service on the part of the Railway administration
- Liability of Railway administration for loss suffered by the appellant

Jurisdiction of State Commission:
The appellant filed a complaint claiming compensation before the State Commission, alleging that the Railway administration failed to provide protection when she was assaulted and robbed while travelling. The State Commission allowed the claim partly, awarding compensation. The Railway administration contended that the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the State Commission found the Railway administration negligent in preventing the incident due to their prior knowledge and awarded compensation to the appellant based on the deficiency in service.

Deficiency in service on the part of the Railway administration:
The State Commission concluded that the Railway administration did not take reasonable steps to prevent the incident despite being aware of the yearly occurrences of mob violence on the route. The Railway administration's negligence in providing security measures and protection to passengers, especially an old and sickly lady like the appellant, was evident. The State Commission found the Railway administration liable for the loss suffered by the appellant due to their failure to curb lawlessness by ticketless travellers. The National Commission, without valid reasons, overturned the State Commission's decision, prompting the appellant to appeal.

Liability of Railway administration for loss suffered by the appellant:
The National Commission observed the absence of adequate police force mobilization by the Railway administration before the incident, indicating negligence. The appellant cited a previous court judgment establishing the Railway administration's statutory liability for such incidents. The Supreme Court upheld the State Commission's decision, emphasizing the Railway administration's breach of common law duty to provide reasonable care to passengers. The Court found the Railway administration at fault for the incident and ordered them to pay compensation to the appellant, rejecting the National Commission's decision to set aside the State Commission's order.