Friday, Apr 26, 2024 | Last Update : 05:53 PM IST
1992 FOB mishap victim cries foul over compensation
The state commission had ordered that Ms Sawant receive Rs 10 lakh in 2009.
Mumbai: Twenty-five years after a foot overbridge (FOB) collapse robbed Vinaya Sawant of her ability to walk, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directed the Railways give her Rs 4.5 lakh in compensation — Rs 5.5 lakh lower than the figure originally decided by the state commission in 2009.
Expressing her displeasure over the reduced amount awarded to her by the apex consumer commission, Ms Sawant, a former MTNL employee, said, “Is the NCDRC giving us charity? We have paid our lawyer more than Rs 5 lakh. My medical expenses have crossed Rs 25 lakh. Is this a justice?”
Ms Sawant, whose spine was severely damaged in the accident, said, “I was 28 when I fell from the bridge (at Jogeshwari). My elder daughter was four years old and the younger one was two at the time. I only know how I brought them up.”
The state commission had ordered that Ms Sawant receive Rs 10 lakh in 2009. However, she challenged this, stating that as her medical expenses had crossed Rs 18.25 lakh, the amount was too low. However, Railways soon challenged her claim. “The Railways has been alleging that I was not a commuter to begin with (as she had failed to produce any evidence of her ticket). But my belongings and jewellery had been stolen by thieves when I was unconscious,” said Ms Sawant.
“We believe that no one is for the common man,” she added.
While hearing the revision petition filed by the Railways against the Maharashtra state commission’s decision to award Rs 10 lakh to Ms Sawant and another petition by her for enhancement of compensation, the NCDRC, headed by presiding member B.C. Gupta, observed, “We tend to believe the version given by the complainant that they travelled by train on the fateful day for their journey from Jogeshwari to Ghatkopar and back. It is a settled legal position that under the Consumer Protection Act, if two different opinions are possible, the one favourable to the consumer should be adopted. “It is held, therefore, that the complainant is very much covered under the definition of consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The finding of the state commission in the impugned order to that effect is upheld, therefore.”
However, while it partly allowed the Railways’ plea, it dismissed Ms Sawant’s petition for enhancement.
