Judgement2023!05!26 Nidhi Case SC

FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.
2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution:23.12.2021
Date of hearing:10.03.2023
Date of Decision: 26.05.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.-76/2021
IN THE MATTER OF
1. MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS

THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,
HEAD OFFICE: RAIL BHAWAN,
RAISINA ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110001
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,

NORTHERN RAILWAYS,
BARODA HOUSE,
NEW DELHI-110001.
(Through: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, Advocate)
…Appellant
VERSUS
MS. NIDHI SHARMA

D/O SHRI DAYANAND SHARMA,
R/o H.NO 296, POST OFFICE GALI,
KAPASHERA BORDER, NEW DELHI
….Respondent in person
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 19
FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.2023
CORAM:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE MR. J.P. AGRAWAL (GENERAL)
Present: Mr. Satish C. Pawar, Inspector Legal of Appellant.

Mr. Ankit Kumar, Counsel for Respondent.
PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,

PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:
“The facts in brief are that the Respondent/Complainant
boarded Train No. 12818 "Jharkhand Express" on
18.02.2016 from Anand Vihar Terminal, Delhi to Ranchi with
her two luggage bags, which were properly locked with
chain. On 19.02.2016, when the Respondent/Complainant
woke up in the morning around 7 a.m., she found that one of
her luggage (trolley bag) containing the following articles
was missing by cutting of chain:
1. Certificates of 10th, 12th and Graduation

2. Diamond ring worth Rs. 67,850/-
3. Camera worth Rs. 14,999/-
4. Sarees worth Rs. 18,000/-
5. Denim Jeans worth Rs. 12,000/-
6. Trolley bag worth Rs. 5,000/-
7. Other clothes and valuable worth Rs. 8,000/-
The total amount comes to Rs. 1,25,849/-
She tried to lodge complaint for the same with officials on
duty, but neither of the officials including police personnel
helped her nor took the responsibility. Thereafter, the
Respondent/Complainant called GRP and lodged a written
FIR at Mughal Sarai Station on 19.02.2016. It was stated that

till date, no action was taken by the concerned officials of
OPs.
The Respondent/Complainant sent a legal notice dated

02.04.2016 to all OPs, reply of which was not satisfactory.
Hence, the Respondent/Complainant prayed for award of
claim/compensation of Rs.5,25,849/- with 18% interest and
litigation cost.”
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material

available on record passed the judgment dated 28.02.2019, whereby it held
as under:
“We have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for
the parties and have perused the material placed on record.
First and foremost the issue is, deciding on the preliminary
objection taken by OP that the Respondent/Complainant was
not a consumer qua OP:
As per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,
"Consumer" means any person who
hires or avails of any services for a consideration which been
paid or promised or partly paid [hires or avails of] any
services for a consideration which has been paid or promised
or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such
services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the
services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid
and partly promised, or under any system of deferred
payment, when such services are availed of with the approval
of the first mentioned person "[but does not include a person

who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
And as per Section 2(b)-"Respondent/Complainant " means-
A consumer; or……
The Respondent/Complainant had booked the ticket from
IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation),
which handles the catering, tourism and online ticketing
operations of India Railways. Thus, the conjoined reading of
Section 2(b) and 2(d)(ii), of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986, once, the Respondent/Complainant has availed the
services of India Railways, she becomes the consumer qua
OP.
Secondly, with respect to territorial jurisdiction, the
Respondent/Complainant had boarded the train from Anand
Vihar, thus, part of cause of action has arisen within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, this Forum is
competent to adjudicate the present complaint.
Another defence taken by OP was that
Respondent/Complainant had not booked her luggage with
OP, thus they were not liable under Section 100 of the
Railways Act.
Hon'ble National Commission in "Northern Railway Vs
Neetu Gupta & Anr; in RP No. 3164 of 2017"', observed that:
The jurisdiction of court or an authority other than the
Railway Claims Tribunal would be barred only in the matters
in which the said tribunal would have jurisdiction in terms of
the Railway Claim Tribunal Act. A perusal of Section 13 as
extracted hereinabove would show that the said tribunal does

not have jurisdiction to grant compensation to a passenger
who has lost the luggage being carried by him or with him on
account to the negligence of the Railway employee. The
jurisdiction of the tribunal is restricted to the goods or
animals entrusted to the Railway administration for carriage
and compensation payable under Section 82 A and 124 A of
the Railways Act. Though the tribunals would also have
power to award compensation on account of an untoward
incident in terms of Section 124 A of the India Railways Act,
the compensation on account of loss of carriage being
carried by passenger with him does not come under the
jurisdiction of the Railways Claim Tribunal. Consequently
the jurisdiction of Courts and Authorities would not be
barred in respect of such a claim.
It was further observed in Northern Railway (Supra) that
Indian Railways will not be responsible for the theft of loss of
the luggage carried by the passengers with them unless it is
shown that such loss of theft occurred due to negligence on
the part of Railways or any of its employees.
The Respondent/Complainant had taken due care by keeping
her luggage locked and chained even though she was
travelling in reserved compartment, thus it was the duty of
OP to make sure that no unauthorized entrants were allowed.
The theft of the luggage of Respondent/Complainant show
the lapse on the part in performance of their duty.
Respondent/Complainant has successfully proved that there

were officials/ guards on the train, as evident from the
photographs annexed with the complaint. It was their duty
not only to maintain the law and order, but also safeguard
the passengers and their luggage. Therefore, OP is deficient
in services.
Due to the omission on the part of the employees/ staff of OP,
in discharging their duty, the Respondent/Complainant lost
her class 10th, 12th and Graduation certificates alongwith
other valuable articles, which included Jewellery, clothes,
camera, trolley etc. She has placed on record the
photographs of the articles. During the course of argument,
upon enquiry the Respondent/Complainant informed that
bills were in the stolen luggage itself. At the same time,
articles mentioned in the FIR registered with UP State
Railways Police which of date 19.02.2016. The
Respondent/Complainant has given the description of the
stolen articles as "jewellery, camera, certificates and
clothes". The photographs placed by the
Respondent/Complainant are of two pair of "diamond
earrings" but in the complaint as well as in the legal notice
dated 06.04.2016, it has been mentioned as "diamond ring"
worth Rs.67,850/-, which creates the doubt on the veracity of
the Respondent/Complainant 's claim. The
Respondent/Complainant could file duplicate bills for the
alleged jewellery to support her contention, which she did
not, but at the same time, the factum of theft is not disputed.
However, in the absence of bills we award lump sum of

Rs.50,000/-, which will suffice in the interest of justice.
Compensation on account of mental agony and harassment
for Rs. 10,000/- including litigation expenses is also awarded
in favour of Respondent/Complainant as the staff/ employees
of OP failed to discharge their duty. It is further directed that
the amount awarded should be deducted from the salary of
delinquent employees.”
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, the
Appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred the present Appeal contending
that the Respondent is not entitled to any relief under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the definitions of “Complainant”,
“Complaint”, “Consumer Dispute” and “Service” as defined in Section 2(1)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 do not cover the claims arising in the
present matter which pertain to theft of articles in the train, and therefore, as
per the aforesaid definitions, the controversy involved herein is not a
“Consumer Dispute”. Secondly, it is submitted that the District Commission
(East) had no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon the dispute
involved in the complaint since the office of the Appellants is located in
Connaught Place and further, the cause of action arose at Mughal Sarai
which is outside the jurisdiction of the District Commission (East). Thirdly,
it is submitted that the Respondent/Complainant did not book the articles as
mandated by the Railway Rules and in view of Section 100 of the Railways
Act, 1989, no liability can be affixed on the Appellants for un-booked
luggage. By pressing the aforesaid contentions and submissions, the
Appellant has prayed for setting aside the Impugned Judgment
Reliance has been placed reliance upon the following precedents:
i. Sonic Surgicals v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010)

1 SCC 135), and
ii. Hemant Vasant Bhavsar & Anr. Vs Union Of India, Central
Railway (F.A. No. A/144/2010 decided on 31.03.2011– State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra)
4. The Respondent has filed the reply and has stated therein that the train was
boarded from Anand Vihar Terminal and a part of the cause of action arose
within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission (East), Saini
Enclave Delhi-110092), making it a competent authority to adjudicate the
matter. Secondly, it is submitted that the Respondent took due care of her
belongings by keeping them under lock and chain and as such it was the
responsibility of the Appellants to ensure the safety of the compartment and
prevent unauthorized persons from entering therein since she was travelling
in a reserved compartment. Thirdly, it is submitted that follow-up visits to
the GRP officials led to the finding that on the night of the incident, other
passengers of the train travelling in the reserved compartments also got their
luggage stolen, thus strongly indicating towards the deficiency on part of the
Appellant. Reliance has been placed upon the following decisions:
i) Southern Eastern Railway vs. Ku.Bharati Arora, I (2004) CPJ
114 NC
ii) G.M. South Central Railway vs R.V. Kumar and Anr, 2005 CTJ
862 (CP) (NCDRC)
iii) Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay vs Union of India & Ors. II (2004)
CPJ 27 (SC):2004 (3) Supreme 291
In light of the aforesaid decisions and averments, the Respondent has
prayed for the dismissal of present Appeal.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsels for
the parties at length.
6. The first preliminary issue that falls for consideration before us is whether
the said dispute falls within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.
7. To resolve the issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to F.A. No.451/2015
titled as ‘Western Railway vs Vinod Sharma’ decided on 18 January,
2017, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held as follows:-
“17. A plain reading of the provisions quoted above from the
Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,
1987 indicates that an elaborate mechanism has been laid
down for providing compensation in the event of accidents,
untoward incidents and allied matters, during the course of
the operations, carried out by the Railways and for that
purpose, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims
Tribunal have been laid down. It is to be determined,
however, whether keeping in view the above provisions, the
consumer fora shall also have the jurisdiction to deal with
the matters, involving railway accidents. The issue has come
up for consideration from time to time before the Hon'ble
Apex Court and this Commission as well. It has been
observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a special
legislation, enacted to provide better protection for the
interests of consumers in diverse fields. It is true that for
specific sectors such as banking, finance, insurance, supply
of electricity, entertainment etc., appropriate mechanism has
been laid down in the respective statute, to provide suitable
relief to the consumers as per requirements. However, the

Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation, specially
enacted for the protection of the consumers and provides an
additional remedy in the shape of Section '3' of the Consumer
Protection Act, which clearly lays down that the provisions
of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the
provisions of any other law for the time being in force. A
harmonious construction of the provisions contained in the
Consumer Protection Act and the Railways Act etc. shall
indicate that the jurisdiction of the consumer fora cannot be
barred, even if the provisions to provide compensation are
laid down in the Railway legislation. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in their order in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative
Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through
LRs, I (2004) CLT 20 (SC) and in Trans Mediterranean
Airways vs. Universal Exports, IV 2011 CPJ 13(SC) observed
that, " having due regard to the scheme of the Act and
purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the
consumers, the better provisions are to be interpreted
broadly, positively and purposefully to give meaning to
additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section
'3' seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other
remedies provided under other Acts, unless there is clear bar.
18. In State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building
Co-op. Society, I (2003) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed, that by reasons of the provisions of Section
'3' of the Act, it is evident that remedies provided thereunder
are not in derogation of those provided under other laws.

The said Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction
of the Civil Courts or other statutory authorities.”
8. On a cursory glance of the aforesaid precedent, it is clear that the remedies
available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Act”) are in addition and not in derogation to those provided under
other laws. The Appellants have contended that the definition of “Service”,
“Complainant” etc as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act do not cover the
claims arising under the present dispute, and therefore the Respondent is not
a consumer. Here we deem it appropriate to refer to the definition of service
as defined under section 2(1)(o) of the Act :
(o) "service" means service of any description which is made
available to potential users and includes the provision of
facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance,
transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy,
board or lodging or both, 6[housing construction],
entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other
information, but does not include the rendering of any service
free of charge or under a contract of personal service;
9. Furthermore clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(d) defines a “consumer” as under-
“(d) "consumer" means any person who- ……….
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which
has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly
promised, or under any system of deferred payment and
includes any beneficiary of such services other than the
person who hires or avails of the services for consideration
paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or
under any system of deferred payments, when such services

are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned
person;”
10. Moreover as per section 2(1)(b) "complainant" means-
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time
being in force; or
(iii) the Central Government or any State Government, who or which
makes a complaint;
(iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers
having the same interest;
(v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative;”
11. On a perusal of the above definitions, it is clear that service includes availing
of any facility in connection to transport and there is not even an iota of
doubt that a person availing such service shall fall within the category of a
consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. The present matter is a case which falls within the purview of deficiency
in service as defined under-section 2 (g) of the Act, which reads as under:
"(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming

or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner 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 services."
13. The scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is further contained in
Section 3 which is reproduced below:
"Section 3. Act not in derogation of any other law- The

provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in
derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time
being in force."
14. In view of the clear provision of the aforesaid section, the Complaints before
the consumer commissions are in addition to all other remedies available
under law, provided the case falls within the definition of deficiency in
service or other related provisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Based on the discussion above, it is clear that once there is a deficiency in
service, then the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission is not ousted.
Therfore, the present dispute falls within the ambit of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 and as such no ground is made out for ousting the
jurisdiction of the District Commission in the present case.
15. The second preliminary issue that falls for our consideration is whether the
cause of action arose outside the jurisdiction of the District Commission
and whether the Complaint is maintainable for want of territorial
jurisdiction.
16. Here, on a perusal of the record it is clear that the Respondent/Complainant
booked the ticket in Delhi through IRCTC and boarded the train from Anand
Vihar Terminal which leaves no room for doubt that a part of the cause of
action arose at Anand Vihar area, Delhi. The Appellants have placed reliance
upon the Sonic Surgical case (supra) and have raised a question of law that
whether the forum constituted under the Act can ignore the law as laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission in
Sonic Surgical case (supra). Here, it is pertinent to mention that we have

gone through the decisions relied upon by the Appellants and after a
thoughtful perusal, we came to the conclusion that the aforesaid decisions
are based on a disparate set of facts which are not applicable to the case in
hand. For instance, the facts in Sonic Surgical case (supra) pertain to a
claim of compensation against an incident of fire breakout in a godown
whereas the case in hand pertains to theft in a moving train. We are of the
view that in certain cases, cause of action is a continuous one and in some
other cases, cause of action is one that may arise on a particular date, when
the Opposite Party commits any particular act or the
Respondent/Complainant gets the right to sue. A plethora of decisions laid
down by the Supreme Court interpreted cause of action in different angles.
Among various decisions, the following decision assumes significance in the
present context. In Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association v. Union
of India & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 294 : AIR 2001 SC 416), the Supreme Court
followed the earlier decisions and put it in another angle:
“The expression "cause of action" has acquired a judicially
settled meaning. In the restricted sense "cause of action" means
the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the
immediate occasion for the reaction. In the wider sense, it means
the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the suit,
including not only the infraction of the right, but also the
infraction coupled with the right itself. As noted above, the
expression means every fact, which it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the
judgment of the Court. Every fact, which is necessary to be
proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is

necessary to prove each fact, comprises in "cause of action.”
In Sonic Surgicals v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 1 SCC
135), the Supreme Court reiterated the earlier proposition and put it in a
simplified manner as:
"The expression cause of action means the bundle of facts
which gives rise to a right or liability."
17. Therefore, what is to be considered in the present case is the set of facts
which gave rise to the “right of safe journey” to the
Respondent/Complainant i.e. the facts that the Respondent/Complainant
boarded the train from Anand Vihar, purchased the ticket from IRCTC,
lodged a complaint for theft, all when taken together, occasion a sufficient
and continuous cause of action beginning from the time when the
Respondent/Complainant boarded the train. In view of the above settled
position of law, the District Commission is fully empowered to adjudicate
upon the Complaint and is not paralyzed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
18. The last question required to be answered in the present case is, whether the
Appellants can deny their liability to compensate the
Respondent/Complainant by relying upon Section 100 of the Railways
Act; and whether there is negligence on the part of the Railway
Administration in providing measures whereby removal of luggage
secured by lock and chain by an intruder became possible.
19. Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989, reads as under:-
"Responsibility as carrier of luggage-A railway
administration shall not be responsible for the loss,
destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any
luggage unless a railway servant has booked the luggage and
given a receipt therefore, and in the case of luggage which is

carried by the passenger in his charge, unless it is also
proved that the loss, destruction, damage or deterioration
was due to the negligence or misconduct on its part or on the
part of any of its servants."
20. Hon'ble National Commission in RP 196/2016 titled as "Union of India
and others v. Syed Mubuddin Rizvi decided on 21.07.2016, after dealing
with Sections 13, 15 & 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, has
observed as under:-
"It would thus be seen that the jurisdiction of a Court or an
authority other than the Railway Claims Tribunal would be
barred only in the matters in which the said tribunal would
have jurisdiction in terms of the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act. A perusal of Section 13 as extracted herein above would
show that the said tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant
compensation to a passenger who has lost the luggage being
carried by him with him on account of the negligence of a
railway employee. The jurisdiction for the tribunal is
restricted to the goods or animals entrusted to the railway
administration for carriage and compensation payable under
Section 82A & 124A of the Railways Act. Though the
tribunals would also have power to award compensation on
account of an untoward incident in terms of Section 124A of
the Railways Act, the compensation on account of loss of the
carriage being carried by a passenger with him does not
come under the jurisdiction of the Railways Claims Tribunal.
Consequently, the jurisdiction of Courts and other authorities
would not be barred in respect of such a claim."
21. In the aforementioned dicta, Hon'ble National Commission also relied upon
Section 100 of the Railways Act, 1989 and observed that it would thus be
seen that the Indian Railways are not responsible for the theft or loss of the
luggage carried by the passengers with them, unless it is shown that such
loss or theft occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the
Railways or any of its employees. In the facts of the aforementioned dicta it

has been observed as under:-
"8. In my opinion, had the T.T.E. and/or coach conductor
been present throughout and not sleeping, he would have
certainly noticed the miscreants cutting the chain and leaving
the compartment with the suitcase of the
Respondent/Complainant . The very fact that the cutting of
the chain and the theft of the suitcase was not noticed either
by the T.T.E. or by the coach conductor clearly indicates that
either they were not present in the coach as is alleged by the
Respondent/Complainant or they were sleeping somewhere
in the coach instead of taking rounds of the coach moving
from one end to the other end. It would be pertinent to note
here that this was the case of the petitioner that in fact no
theft had taken place and a false report of theft was made by
the Respondent/Complainant . This is also not the case of the
petitioners in the reply filed before the District Forum that
the Respondent/Complainant had not secured his suitcase
using an iron chain and lock for the purpose as was alleged
by him. Therefore, the case set out by the
Respondent/Complainant remained practically unrebutted."
22. The aforesaid Revision Petition filed by the Railways was dismissed on the
ground that since the theft of the suitcase happened due to negligence on the
part of the railway employees, the petitioners are liable to compensate the
Respondent/Complainant for the loss sustained by him.
23. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is to be noted that the Appellants
have not contested the Respondent’s submission that she did secure her
luggage with lock and chain and the same was found to be broken.
Therefore, an inference can be drawn in favour of the Respondent that she
diligently took all safety measures and exercised caution on her side to
protect her luggage. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that price difference
between an unreserved ticket and a reserved ticket is quite high and the
passengers who buy a reserved ticket have a reasonable expectation that they
can commute with a certain level of security and safety. There is a

responsibility cast on the TTE/Coach Conductor/staff attached to the
reserved compartments to be very vigilant about anyone other than the
reserved tickets holders entering the compartment, to such an extent that he
is required to prevent even a relative of the passenger holding a platform
ticket who comes to see off a passenger, from entering a coach. The
TTE/Coach Conductor/staff is particularly required to take special care and
to ensure that the doors of the coach are kept locked when the train is on the
move. It is to be noted that a strong presumption is raised against the
TTE/Coach Conductor/staff in charge of ensuring the security of the
reserved compartment that they failed in the performance of their duties
which led to the commission of theft. Lastly, as regards the contention that
the Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant reported her goods as “Missing”
and not “Stolen” in the Complaint lodged with GRP and did not produce the
bills of the missing articles, we concur with the view taken by the District
Commission as the factum of not placing the bills on record has been duly
noted by the District Commission and a reasoned observation has been put
forth in this regard in the Impugned Judgment.
24. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that it has rightly been held by the
District Commission that the Appellants failed to prevent unauthorised
persons to enter the reserved compartment and were deficient and negligent
in not providing requisite safety and security to reserved compartments.
25. Thus, we do not find any reasons to reverse the findings of the District
Commission. Consequently, we uphold the order dated 28.02.2019, passed
by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East),Convenient
Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, New Delhi – 110092. Consequently, the
present Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
26. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

Judgment.
27. FDR, if any be released in favour of the Respondent namely Ms. Nidhi
Sharma.
28. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as
mandated by the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. The judgment be
uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the
parties.
29. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL)

PRESIDENT
(PINKI)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
J.P. AGRAWAL
MEMBER (GENERAL)
Pronounced On:
26.05.2023

Judgement2023!05!26 Nidhi Case SC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgement2023!05!26 Nidhi Case SC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FA NO./76/2021 MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS VS MS.NIDHI SHARMA D.O.D. 26.05.

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

FIRST APPEAL NO.-76/2021

1. MINISTRY OF INDIAN RAILWAYS

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,

(Through: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, Advocate)

MS. NIDHI SHARMA

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

Present: Mr. Satish C. Pawar, Inspector Legal of Appellant.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,

1. Certificates of 10th, 12th and Graduation

FIR at Mughal Sarai Station on 19.02.2016. It was stated that

The Respondent/Complainant sent a legal notice dated

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material

of the first mentioned person "[but does not include a person

extracted hereinabove would show that the said tribunal does

Respondent/Complainant has successfully proved that there

However, in the absence of bills we award lump sum of

i. Sonic Surgicals v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010)

relief to the consumers as per requirements. However, the

are not in derogation of those provided under other laws.

under any system of deferred payments, when such services

"(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming

"Section 3. Act not in derogation of any other law- The

Sonic Surgical case (supra). Here, it is pertinent to mention that we have

proved, as distinguished from every piece of evidence, which is

given a receipt therefore, and in the case of luggage which is

Railways or any of its employees. In the facts of the aforementioned dicta it

can commute with a certain level of security and safety. There is a

26. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL)

You might also like