|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many a life has been lost due to the indifference of the Railways to passenger safety, observes Pushpa Girimaji In 1990, 21-year-old Kabita Hansaria met a tragic end while travelling from Delhi to Guwahati on the Tinsukia mail. The toilets attached to the compartment in which she was travelling had no water and so she decided to try out the toilet in the next coach. The interconnecting vestibule that she had to pass through however had no side grills for protection and even as she was walking on it, the train gave a jerk and Kabita fell right on the railway track below and was crushed under the train. Then in 1995, Sarika Hora, an engineering student, met a similar fate while travelling from Delhi to Pune by Goa Express after she stepped on a hole in one of the vestibules which had neither been repaired nor cordoned off. She fell on the tracks below and died. In yet another case, Devi Chand was travelling from Rourkela to Delhi by Utkal Express in 1993. Since the toilet attached to his compartment was occupied, he decided to try out the one in the next compartment. The vestibule did not have any side grills and while crossing these, he fell down from the train and was crushed to death. These incidents show that the Railways did not learn any lesson from Kabita’s tragedy and continued to run trains without checking the safety of the vestibules. When Kabita’s parents filed a complaint before the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Railways did not show an iota of regret at what happened. Instead of paying the grief-stricken parents of Kabita at least some monetary compensation, it argued that the case did not fall under the jurisdiction of the consumer court and had to be tried before the Railway Claims Tribunal. This despite the Claims Tribunal itself had held that the case did not fall under its jurisdiction and the parents were free to institute a fresh case before the competent consumer court. Subsequently, when the State Commission awarded a compensation of Rs 2.25 lakh, the Railways filed an appeal against it before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which however dismissed it (Union of India and Others Vs Nathmal Hansaria, first appeal no 692 of 1993, decided in 1997). In the case of Devi Chand, when the District Forum in Delhi awarded his widow and three children a compensation of Rs 2 lakh, the Railways filed an appeal before the State Commission. The Railways contention was that the tragedy happened when the train was passing through Raigarh district in Madhya Pradesh it was under the jurisdiction of south-eastern railway. The District Forum in Delhi had no jurisdiction to adjudicate over the complaint. The Railways also questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum. Dismissing the appeal, the
State Commission said there was gross negligence not only in the unsafe
journey that the Railways provided, but also in the cavalier manner in
which it had dealt with the case. On the question of jurisdiction, the
Commission said the argument that the consumer should file the complaint
at the place where the accident occurred was "adding insult to
injury". The widow was awarded Rs 10,000 as cost. (Union of India
Vs Smt Chando Devi, decided on February 21, 2005). |
