|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Four years ago, while holding the Airports Authority of India liable for the tragic death of a seven-year old girl in an escalator mishap at Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi, the highest consumer court in the country had expressed disgust at the way statutory bodies and public sector undertakings tried to shirk responsibility for their negligence. "The case also illustrates to what extent we have developed the tendency to deny the obvious in litigation. Except admitting the trapping of the young child in the escalator, the AAI has tried to dispute its liability and deficiency in service. We do not know when we would change our jurisprudence which encourages such attitude of denials and protracts litigation and increases burden on adjudicating forums/courts", the apex court had observed in that case. Now, in a case involving the Railways, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has expressed similar sentiments. Criticising the Railways for attempting to escape liability for its negligence in maintaining a foot overbridge, the commission made it clear that the Railways have to take responsibility for the maintenance of all passenger facilities, and any dereliction of duty in this regard would render the public utility service liable for the consequences of its inaction. The apex court’s observation is highly relevant here: " It is the duty of the Railways to maintain, in good order, platforms and footpaths for ingress and egress of the passengers and all other passenger facilities and amenities. For this maintenance, passengers are paying fee by way of purchase of journey tickets or platform tickets". The case pertains to an accident that happened 15 years ago, when part of a foot overbridge collapsed, resulting in several passengers falling down to the railway track below and sustaining grievous injuries. Mr and Mrs Vilas Sawant, who had got off a local train in Mumbai and were walking on the bridge that took them from the railway station to Jogeshwari east, were also the victims. The couple was admitted to a hospital in an unconscious state, and when they gained consciousness, they found that they had even been robbed of all their money and jewellery. The enquiry ordered into the accident showed that the Railways were negligent in the maintenance of the foot overbridge, resulting in its collapse. The enquiry committee observed that detailed and proper inspection of the welds which held the bridge were not carried out. Nor was proper care taken to ensure the bridge’s repair and maintenance, resulting in the welds giving away. But what was even more deplorable was the attitude of the Railways when it came to the claim for compensation from a consumer. The Railways argued that the court could not entertain her complaint in view of the bar placed by Section 124-A of the Railway Act and Sections 13 (1-A) and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Dismissing this argument, the national commission pointed out that firstly, the bar on jurisdiction placed by the two railway laws did not apply in this case because there was no remedy under both these laws for the kind of accident suffered by the consumer. Secondly, the Consumer Protection Act clearly said that the provisions of the law were "in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force". The apex court also examined the question of whether a passenger in a case such as this where she has completed the journey, got off the train and is injured while using the overbridge would be a consumer entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Said the court: "In our view, after purchasing a railway ticket, a passenger would be a consumer as he avails of the services of the Railways, including the use of platform, footpath, overbridges for ingress to and egress from train and, if there is any deficiency in service in providing defective ingress or egress which causes injury, then such a person is entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986".
|
||
|
|
||
