Jehangir B Gai: Don't restrict case to Railway Tribunal

The Railways stated that they had agreed to bear the entire medical expenses

Vinod Sharma, 34, was working with SKIL Infra. He resided at Nalla Sopara and travelled to work by local train.

On the morning of May 13, 2010, when he alighted at Churchgate, a heavy wooden plank fell on his head from a height of over 50 feet during renovation work on platform number three causing grievous brain injury and multiple skull fractures.

Sharma was admitted to Bombay Hospital from May 13, 2010 to September 09, 2010 for brain and skull surgeries. He was later admitted to Alliance Hospital at Nalasopara from October 12, 2011 to October 15, 2011 where he was diagnosed to be suffering from right-sided hemiparesis (grade III) on upper limbs, grade IV on lower limbs and had significant global dysphasia. A part of his skull was removed that would be required to be fixed at a later stage. This condition required lifelong treatment and a special diet costing Rs 6,000 a month.

Sharma filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Commission claiming Rs80 lakh compensation, along with interest and costs. In the complaint, it was mentioned that there was no sign put on the platform to warn passengers that work was being carried out. The Railways contested that the complaint was not maintainable before the consumer fora and only the 

Railway Claims Tribunal would have exclusive jurisdiction on it.

The Railways also stated that they had agreed to bear the entire medical expenses, and had incurred over Rs28 lakh towards treatment. It also pointed out that Sharma had not signed the identity card, nor did the Railways pass bear any name or signature and there was a discrepancy in his age.

Rejecting these defences, the Maharashtra State Commission upheld the complaint. It directed the Railways to bear Vinod’s present and future medical expenses. It also ordered the Railways to pay Rs62.87 lakh as compensation along with 9 per cent interest within three months. In case of delay, the interest rate would stand enhanced to 12 per cent a year. 

Additionally, Rs5 lakh was awarded for the pain, suffering and mental agony, and Rs15,000 towards litigation costs.

The Railways appealed against this order. The main challenge was to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. The National Commission observed that the Consumer Protection Act was a beneficial legislation which provided an additional remedy for better protection of consumers. So the remedy of approaching the Railway Claim Tribunal would not prevent a consumer from filing a consumer complaint.

The National Commission observed that a merely technicality about the identity card not being signed and the pass not bearing any name or signature would not make any difference to the case as the correctness of these documents was not under dispute. So Vinod was held to be a consumer.

Since the compensation had been computed by the State Commission on the basis of the prescribed formula taking into account Vinod’s age and income prior to the accident, the National Commission held that the amount awarded was proper and reasonable.Accordingly, by its order of January 18, 2017 delivered by B C Gupta, the National Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the railways.

Now any person who suffers injuries due to the negligence of the Railways can approach the consumer forum. 

The author is a consumer activist