CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(2003) 08 NCDRC CK 0008

UNION OF INDIA vs KAMLA VERMA

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 8 August 2003 · Citation: 2003 0 NCDRC 24 : 2003 3 CPJ 177 : 2003 3 CPR 102 : 2004 1 CPC 315

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.P.WADHWA , B.K.TAIMNI , K.S.GUPTA , RAJYALAKSHMI RAO J.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 345 words
1.

THIS appeal by the Union of India is against the order dated 12.12.2002 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowing the complaint of the respondent/complainant and awarding her compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for serious injuries suffered by her while travelling in the railway which injury resulted in her paralyses of the limbs upto 70%.

2.

WITH the appeal an application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 181 days in filing the appeal. As sufficient cause in not filing the appeal within the period of 30 days, it is para 2 of the application which we reproduce as under : "2. That the delay of 181 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the said judgment and order dated 8.1.2003 rendered by the learned State Commission is merely beyond the control over the appellant since the Ministry of Railway bifurcated the Central Railway and the present dispute come with the West Central Railway. And for the said bifurcating the Region, the file of the case were not traceable. Just after traced the case file, the appellant contact their Counsel and filed the present appeal."

Apart from this there is no other ground given to condone the delay. We hardly find any sufficient cause for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Section 21 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to condone the delay. This appeal, therefore, fails on the ground of limitation.

3.

NEVERTHELESS , we find that State Commission has considered all the facts of the case. State Commission rejected the objections of the Railways that it is only the Railway Claims Tribunal which has jurisdiction in the matter. State Commission referred to the provisions of Sections 123, 124 and 124A of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and held that jurisdiction of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was rightly invoked.

4.

WE do not find any infirmity of the impugned order of the State Commission. Rather we are of the view that compensation awarded was on the lower side. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.