Order Name: Rati Tripathi & 2 Ors. Vs. Union Of India & Anr.
Case No.: F.A.No. 544/2016
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, recently delivered a significant judgment. The Commission ruled that while parties may have multiple legal remedies, they cannot seek compensation twice for the same incident.
Facts of the Case
A woman was traveling on a train with a reserved seat when several unknown individuals attempted to snatch her purse. In the struggle, she was thrown from the train, resulting in severe injuries and subsequent paralysis on her right side. The complainant accused the train’s Ticket Examiner (TTE) and railway staff of negligence, seeking compensation of Rs. 99,40,000. However, the state commission dismissed the complaint, prompting an appeal to the National Commission.
Railways’ Argument
The railway authorities contended that the complaint should not be entertained by the Consumer Commission. They stated that the incident was registered as an offense under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and categorized as an "untoward incident" under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act, 1989. According to them, such matters fall under the jurisdiction of Section 124A of the Railways Act and related sections of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, making the consumer complaint inadmissible.
National Commission’s Observations
The key question for the National Commission was whether the State Commission was correct in directing the complainant to seek recourse through the Railway Claims Tribunal instead of the consumer forum. The Commission recognized that the Consumer Protection Act offers an additional remedy under Section 3, even when other laws, like the Railways Act, provide paths for compensation. This jurisdiction was supported by past rulings, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Rathi Menon vs. Union of India, which clarified that while alternative remedies exist, double compensation for the same incident is not permissible. Consequently, the Commission found that the State Commission erred in dismissing the complaint and remanded the case for a fresh decision based on its merits.
Takeaway
This judgment reinforces the principle that while multiple legal avenues may be available, claimants must choose one path for compensation when dealing with the same incident. It also underscores the consumer fora’s jurisdiction in cases where negligence is alleged, even where specific tribunals exist for particular sectors.
