Order No.   19                                                             Date 25/04/2022

          Parties file hazira. The instant M.A. case relating to application on behalf of petitioner nos.2, 5 & 11 of this M.A. case being they are O.p. nos.2, 5 & 11 of C.C. case No.153/2018 is taken up for hearing. Heard the Ld. Advocate of the respective parties in full. Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner Nos.2, 5 & 11 and Ld. Advocate appearing for other O.ps. representing South Eastern Railway in a chorus voice submit that instant C.C. case No.153/2018 is not maintainable and the original complaint of C.C. case No.153/2018 has to make application for claim before the Railway Claimant Tribunal and Railway Claim Tribunal has absolutely jurisdiction to exercise the relevant case. On the other hand Ld. Advocate of O.p. of the instant M.A. case who is being complainant of the C.C. case NO.153/2018 raised strong objection against the submission of the rival sides. According to him Consumer Protection Act, which means “any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quantity, nature and matter of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”. He also pointed out that “there is no significant decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Davi M. Dhanwantay v Union of India II (2004) CPJ 27 (SC), in respect injuries suffered by consumers while traveling in train. This decision has been given under the Consumer Protection Act, and while dealing with the concept of deficiency in service and liability, held that the railway administrative was expected to take reasonable steps to safeguard the interests of passengers against any incident of theft by unauthorized passengers”. Having heard the parties and going through the application under consideration we are of the view that the petitioner nos.2, 5 & 11 being O.p. of C.C. case No.CC/153/2018 praying for dismissal of the case appears to be sans in substance. Alternatively it can be said that said application bears no merit and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly said application stands rejected and thus, instant M.A. case No.70/2019 is disposed of. The result of this M.A. case be noted in C.C. case No.CC/153/2018.

Dictated & corrected by me.  

President                                 Member                                        President