Advantage Consumer

	advantageconsumer.com Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela

Important judgements passed by the Consumer Courts
Railways

1. Proper maintenance, standard of cleanliness and sanitation in the Railway compartments and the toilets should be maintained.

National Commission, New Delhi
Original Petition No. 17 of 1991

Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela
Vrs.
Northen & South Eastern Railways

2. Change in train route cannot be questioned in consumer courts

National Commission, New Delhi
Original Petition No. 8 of 1995

B.Vaidyanathan,Secretary,Consumer protection Council,Rourkela
Vs
General Manager, Southern Railway

3. Accidental death occuring while travelling by train due to unsafe conditions existing in the coaches do not come under the purview of the Railway Claims Tribunal and can be adjudicated upon by the consumer courts.

National Commission, New Delhi
First appeal No.602 of 1993

Union of India and Ors.
Vs
Nathmal Hansaria and Anr.

4. Railways is bound by the endorsement made by the Conductor-Guard

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 776 OF 1996

Mr.Bhaskar Choudhary -- Petitioner
Vs.
Dr. Pramod Kumar Agrawal -- Respondent

5. Existence of remedy provided under Railway Claims Tribunal Act does not restrict the jurisdiction of Consumer Courts to decide the question of deficiency of service.

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Revision Petition No. 300/2000

Dy. Chief Comercial Manager, Eastern Railway & anr.      --- Petitioners
                                        Vs.
Dr. K.K. Sharma & others                                               --- Respondents

6. Railways directed to compensate for chain snatching that took place during journey

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 1158 of 2001

Mrs. M.Kanthimathi & Anr.                   ----- Petitioners
                     Vs.
Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways        ----- Respondent

7. "It is the responsibility of the Railways to prevent the entry of unauthorised persons in the reserved sleeper coaches" National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 1590/2000

Union of India & Ors.                                ----- Petitioners
            Vs.
Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave & Anr.                   ------ Respondent

8. Non-availability of water in reserved railway compartment - deficient service National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 1065 of 2002

South Eastern Railway                         -   Petitioner
                       Vs.
Yeshwant Tiwari & Ors.                        -   Respondents

9. Railways directed to affix tamper proof and easily discernable coach number plates in all the sleeper coaches NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Revision Petition No. 907 of 1998

The Chairman, Railway Board & Anr.          --- Petitioners
                           Vs.
P.S.R.K.Timaji Rao & Ors.                        --- Respondents

10. Litigating by public authorities for prolonged periods, for even paltry sums, condemned.

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2103 OF 2011

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                             ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
SURENDRANATH PANDA & ANR.                     …….Respondent(s)

11. Railways penalised for permitting unauthorized passengers in a reserved coach

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1862 OF 2015

GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
SK. MANAB LUFTEE ...........Respondent(s)

12. Heavy compensation awarded to the rail passenger for the severe physical injury inflicted on him due to Railways’ negligence.

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

FIRST APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2015

WESTERN RAILWAY, MUMBAI ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
VINOD SHARMA ...........Respondent(s)

13. When Railways intentionally delays running of a train in the larger public interest, there is no deficiency in service.

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2015

UNION OF INDIA & 3 ORS.     ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
N. CHANNABASAPPA    ...........Respondent(s)

14. Railways’ Appeal rejected as it failed to adhere to the Limitation Period provided under Law.

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1308 OF 2017

UNION OF INDIA (NORTHERN RAILWAY) ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
SMT. FARYAL ...........Respondent(s)

Top

Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela