TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (4) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent occurred on 4.12.1991. Thousands of persons entered into the compartment and assaulted the passengers, including the appellant. The said crowd was so violent that they broke the doors, window bars, glass panels, seating berths and toilets etc. This apart, the crowd committed so many other illegal acts of assaulting the bonafide passengers. They molested the women and even raped the young girl passengers. The appellant pulled the alarm chain three times, as a result of which, the train stopped at Igatpuri Station. She, along with other bonafide passengers got down at that station. She approached the Railway Authorities for protection, but, without any assistance. On reaching Bombay, she lodged a complaint with the police about the incide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ully justified in ordering the compensation. In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the order impugned in this appeal is just and supportable order. According to her, the State Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint made by the appellant; there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Railway administration; when an unruly mob entered into the railway compartment and caused damage on the person and property of the passengers, the Railway administration was helpless. In such a situation, no complaint could be entertained by the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have considered the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties. As is ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was contended that intimation could be given to the concerned Bank. An argument was also advanced that the complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of Sections 100 and 103 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The State Commission has categorically recorded a 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 take precaution and preventive measures. Their ne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as been negligence on the part of the Railway administration. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Railway administration is not liable for the loss suffered by the appellant, cannot be accepted in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of P. A. Narayanan v. Union of India and Ors., [1998] 3 SCC 67. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads thus; "Mr. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the Railway administration, does not dispute that under the new Act, there is statutory liability on the Railways but submits that the 1989 Act does not have any retrospective operation. We do not wish to go into that question in this case and leave that issue open. We are resting our case on the breach of c....