SUMATIDEVI M. DHANWATAY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 928 · Decided: 06-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUMATIDEVI M. DHANWATAY 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 6, 2004 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 
C 
Section 3-Complaint before State Commission-Maintainability a/-
Held, maintainable in absence of any plea taken by Respondent-Railway 
administration as to jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain the complaint. 
Deficiency in service-State Commission finding deficiency of service 
on the part of Railway Administration and awarded compensation to 
D passenger-National Commission without assigning any reason set aside the 
order-Held, the order of National Commission being non-reasoned, cannot 
be sustained 
Railways Act, 1989-sections 124A, 100 & 103-Mob violence on 
railway passengers-Damage to person and property-Held, Railway 
E Administration was negligent in not taking preventive steps-Liable to pay 
compensation to the passenger for the loss suffered 
An unruly mob entered into a railway compartment and assaulted 
the passengers. Appellant, an old lady travelling in the same compartment 
F was assaulted and damage was caused on her person and property. She 
approached the Railway authorities for protection, but did not get any 
assistance from them. Thereafter she filed complaint, claiming 
compensation, before the State Consumer Commission. The State 
Commission recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the 
part of the Railway administration on the date of incident, and accordingly 
G awarded compensation to appellant. Aggrieved, Railway administration 
filed appeal whereupon the National Commission set aside the order of 
State Commission. Hence the appeal. 
H 
The appellant contended that the State Commission was justified in 
ordering compensation and that the National Commission was not right 
928 
.,. 
-
I 
S.M. DHANW ATAY v. U.0.l. 
929 
in setting aside that order. The respondents however contended that the A 
State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint made by 
the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The State Commission has categorically recorded a B 
finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway 
administration on the date of incident. It is also noticed in the order of 
the State Commission that the incident did not take place all of a sudden. 
The Railway administration was well aware of the impending contingency 
that would happen (as it was a yearly experience for them). The State 
Commission has also recorded that the Railway administration failed to C 
take precaution and preventive measures. Their negligence was 
compounded in the case of the appellant being old and sickly lady. The 
appellant suffered injury and no protection or support was given to her. 
The Railway administration inspite of their prior knowledge had not made 
any efforts or devised measures to curb lawlessness indulged in by the D 
ticketless travellers. The State Commission was not satisfied with the 
explanation given on behalf of the Railway administration, when it came 
forward to state that they had taken sufficient precautions. Having 
recorded such finding, the compensation was awarded to the appellant. 
However, strangely, the National Commission, without noticing the facts 
of the case, without dislodging the reasons recorded by the State E 
commission and without giving reasons, upset the order of the State 
Commission, simply stating that the finding of the State Commission could 
not be upheld. [932-8-E) 
1.2. There has been negligence on the part of the Railway F 
administration. Under Section 124A of the Railways Act, 1989 the Railway 
administration cannot escape the liability having regard to the facts and 
circumstances of the case and in the light of the incident that had taken 
place. [932-G; 933-FJ 
P.A. Narayanan v. Union of India and Ors., [19981 3 SCC 67, relied G 
on. 
~ -. 
1.3. The Railway administration also did not raise any issue as to 
the maintainability of the complaint or jurisdiction of the State 
Commission to deal with the complaint. Even otherwise, under Section 3 
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complaint could be entertained H 
930 
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 3 S.C.R. 
A by the State Commission in the absence of any such plea taken by the 
Railway administration as to the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 
(933-F-G( 
B 
c 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2252 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.