Rebecca Samervel TNN
As a service provider, the railways are in a consumer relationship with commuters and so Monika’s case has valid ingredients for admission in a consumer forum, said consumer activist M S Kamath. “All she needs is a valid daily or season ticket. This will prove that she is aconsumer. If a gap on the platform was the reason she fell on tracks, the railways can be held guilty for deficiency in service,” he said.
Kamath said that in recent cases of theft and dacoity, consumer commissions have held the railways guilty of negligence and not providing adequate security on trains.
In a landmark case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1995 upheld a state commission order and directed the railways to pay Rs 2.25 lakh to the parents of a 21-year-old, Kabita Hansaria, who died in 1990 while passing through interconnecting compartments on a long-distance train. The Hansarias told the commission that the vestibule connecting the compartments did not have safety grills. The railways had contended that according to the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal, the complaint was not tenable before the commission. But the commission made a clear distinction between a train accident and accidental death, and observing that Kabita's death was the latter case. “The state commission is right in pointing out that a railway passenger is a consumer,” the national commission had said.
Consumer lawyer Uday Wavikar said cases like Monika’s fell under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. ‘‘There are instances when the national commission awarded compensation to people injured after falling off railway bridges. In a recent order, an airliner was ordered to pay compensation to a passenger who died in an escalator mishap.”
In 2011, the national commission ruled in favour of a woman whose husband was run over by a goods train in 2003 while he was crossing tracks at a spot where there was no railway bridge. The commission rejected the railways’ defence that such cases fell under the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and that consumer fora did not have jurisdiction.
COMPENSATION
POSSIBILITIES RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Compensation for accident victims 4 LAKH | Death, loss of both hands or legs, deafness, disfiguring of face
32,000 TO 3.6 LAKH | Other injuries
Interim Relief | Pending settlement of claim, the railways are required to meet victim’s emergent expenses and afford her immediate relief. The amount is adjusted against final settlement CONSUMER COURT A complaint can be filed in any of six ‘district consumer disputes redressal’ forums in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region | South Mumbai, Central Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Mumbai Additional (suburban), Thane, Thane Additional (Navi Mumbai)
Forum admits complaint within 21 days and issues notice to the service provider (in Monika More’s case, the railways), who must reply in 30 days. Grace period of 15 days can be given. If there is no reply, forum can hear matter ex parte and pass order If order is unsatisfactory, file appeal at state and then national commission LEVELS AS PER COMPENSATION
Above 1 crore Complaint heard by national commission
20 lakh to 1 crore
Complaint heard by
state commission
Below 20 lakh Complaint heard
by district forum HIGH COURT To expedite hearing at Railway Claims Tribunal, the high court can be approached PROSTHETIC ARMS Bebionic 3 | Most advanced myoelectric arm. Controlled by electrical impulses from amputee’s stump muscles. Can perform complex tasks like tying shoe laces and holding heavy objects Cost of arm | 50L Cost of fitting and follow-ups
| 30-50L
.jpg)
CCTV footage of Monika More (circled) on the platform, seconds before her accident at Ghatkopar station on Saturday
No comments:
Post a Comment