SHRI K.D.DASH, MEMBER: - Complainant Prem Prakash Panigrahi, a legal practitioner by profession calls in question here in this complaint, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice caused by Railway and the contractor thereof engaged by it for providing food to him in the matter of pantry car service during his journey on dated.7.12.2013 from Allepy to Sambalpur in 3rd A.C. in Train No.13352 Dhanbad Express on a ticket booked therefor at Sambalpur.
2. The complainant has impleaded the Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi and Divisional railway Manager, Sambalpur Railway Division, East Coast Railway,Sambalpur as O.Ps in this case and has expressed that due to lack of address the pantry car contractor has not been arrayed as a party in this case. 3. The complainant has relied upon three documents such as a list of standard menu of the Items consisted in a meal in the Indian Railway cattering service of Puri Jagadalpur express train No.18473-18474, a similar train of the management marked as Annexure-1, copy of the complaint lodged in that regard on dated.7.12.2013 before the D.C.M, one Mr George marked as Annexure-2 and that a copy of the complaint lodged at Tiripur in one suggestion-cum- complaint book supplied at the instance of the pantry car, marked as Annexure-3.But no railway ticket has been produced.
4. The case of the complainant is that while he was having his journey on the date of occurrence from Allepy to Sambalpur , he asked the pantry car staff to provide a standard vegetable meal. The price extracted in the standard vegetable meal was Rs.70/- instead of Rs.50/- and the quality of the food was too poor.
5. It is alleged that the standard vegetable meal as prescribed by railway usually contains as per the description made below.
i) Rice Pullao or jeera rice or plain rice of fine quality – 150 gms.
ii) Parthan (2 nos.) or Chapati (4 nos.) or Puris (5 nos) -100 gms.
iii) Dar or Sambhar(Thick consistency) – 150 gms.
iv) Mix vegetable(Seasonal) – 100 gms.
v) Pickle in Sachet- 15 gms.
vi) Packaged drinking water in sealed glasses-250 ml.
6. It is claimed that no dal was supplied in the meal and after observing that the sambhar supplied instead was of very thin quality and the curry that was supplied contained only potatoes but no vegetables. The complainant went to the pantry car for lodging a complaint before the manager but he could not find the manager there. And, it is said that such a fact was informed to the complainant by one Md. Iqbal, one of that out of the service staff, who pointed out the manager’s name as one N.K.Singh. As alleged, when the service staff expressed his inability that the complaint book has been kept under lock and key, the complainant reported the fact to C.T.I. He furnished official stationary such as paper and carbon to the complainant and advised to lodge a written complaint before Mr. George, the D.C.M., Railway Division, Salem, who was moving in the train on that day on a surprise visit. It is said, after getting the complaint the D.C.M. inspected the pantry car and imposed some penalty on the spot.
7. It is alleged that the pantry car staff were no giving bills/cash memos to any passengers and production of bill book of the relevant date would evidence this fact.
8. Thus it is alleged that such conduct of the railway has caused considerable mental agony, harassment and inconvenience apart from financial loss to the complainant and therefore, under the very facts and circumstances the complainant prays for compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the O.Ps along with appropriate warnings to the railway authority on strict observance of the guide lines issued in respect of the passengers.
9. We have heard the complainant in person and also the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the O.Ps. Perused the documents extended from the side of the complainant, went through the written submission submitted by the O.Ps concerned. The case is keenly contested from the side of the O.Ps.
10. Reiterating the entire facts as mentioned above, the complainant inter alia strongly submitted that the railway and its conductor has some supervisory responsibility of which they cannot absolve from.
The Indian Railway cannot give its caterer a license for free exploitation of passengers in the matter of pantry car service. Therefore vigilance, monitoring and drastic action for cancellation of pantry car contract can substantiate the rights of exploitation of helpless passengers.
11. It is alleged that the railway has not yet taken any action on the complaint dated.7.12.2013 and therefore, the railways deserves so as to be clamped with exemplary damage for that it caused considerable mental agony, harassment and inconvenience apart from financial loss to the complainant.
12. Countering such averments of the complainant the learned counsel for the O.Ps vehemently opposed the matter contending that this Forum lacks with any authority in entertaining the present complaint at hand on the ground of territorial jurisdiction being not part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of it. For such contention the learned counsel for the O.Ps relied upon certain decisions passed by Honble Supreme Court, National C.D.R.Commission and State C.D.R.Commission reported in (2010) 1 Supreme Court Casesdf-135 in the matter of Sonic Surgical Vrs. National Insurance Company Limited,2014(2) CPR-62(H.P) in the matter of Regional Centre (ECHS) Cant & Others Vrs. Ram Kumar Sharma, 2004(1) CPR-76(NC) in the matter of Arup Kumar Bhattacharya Vrs. Kundu Tirtha Special & Another and 2003(2) CPR-67 State C.D.R.Commission, Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dr.B.M.Singhal Vrs. M/s Track on Line and prayed to dismiss the case.
13. It is submitted from the side of the O.Ps that the complaint suffers from non-joinder/mis-joinder of parties and therefore is also liable to be rejected. The learned counsel stated that the parties against whom specific allegations have been made in the complaint petition have not been made parties to keep the matter in track and for not to bring the truth to the limelight. Neither the D.R.M., Salem Mr. George or Southern Railway under whose jurisdiction the alleged incident happened nor East Central Railway, Hazipur, Bihar or the cattering contractor, who are liable for the cattering services and alleged pantry car manager Mr.N.K.Singh have been impleaded as O.Ps in this case and they have also not been summoned by the complainant to adduce evidence before the Forum. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned counsel that the D.R.M., Sambalpur against whom there is no allegation at all in the entire petition has been made as O.P. in the complaint for no reason.
14. The learned counsel for the O.Ps further submitted that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his allegations. It is averred that mear filing of the copy of the alleged complaint book without substantially proving the occurrence does not establish the case and therefore the matter needs its dismissal on the ground of not proving the issue through cogent evidence . To this, he relied on two decisions reported in 2010(3) CPR-81 (NC) in the matter of General Manager Northern Railways and Others Vrs. Dau Dayal Chaturvedi and 2014(1) CPR-368(NC) in the matter of General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur & Others Vrs, Dr. G.L.Gupta.
15. It is forcefully submitted from the side of the O.Ps that the present complaint is nothing but a frivolous and vexatious one having no substantial cause for the same and therefore is needed to be dismissed. It is submitted that sometimes things goes wrong without any intention and certain misconception and therefore it should be our endeavor to identify the defects and loopholes for our administrative and social system and suggest, promote and ventilate means to correct it to the tune of our needs and aspirations. It is submitted that baseless claims without evidence should be discouraged. Again, it is stated that if the complainant is at all a Social Activist, as he claims in the complaint case, he should have filed a P.I.L. and otherwise ventilated the grievance in social interest and should not have claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for supply of Thin dal and Curry without vegetable.
Thus it is submitted by the O.Ps to outrightly reject the claim.
16. On reply, the complainant submitted that the present complaint at hand is well maintainable in the eye of law and submitted a copy of order dated.8.12.2014 in his support passed by this Forum in Complaint Case No.66 of 2013 filed by him over the same said issue and matter. He did also file a copy of the order passed in F.A.No.601618 of 2007 passed on dt.28.8.20-14 by the Honble State C.D.R.Commissison, Odisha, Cuttack over such a matter specifically on the issue of jurisdiction on like a case of railway.
17. On careful consideration of the matter, first of all, we find that so far as the issue of jurisdiction of this Forum as raised by the O.Ps is concerned, such a submission is hardly acceptable because of the reason that the complainant hired the service of Railways for travelling from Allepy to Sambalpur in Train No.13352-Dhanbad Express on dt.7.12.2013 and the ticket fare including IRCTC service charges that was Rs.2,122/- booked at Sambalpur. It can be seen that there may be specific zones to facilitate proper and efficient service and administration but it is being headed under the authority of the Indian Railways. So, necessarily, no differential can be drawn in the colour of zones and jurisdiction and in this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the O.Ps is not tenable. Therefore, the case is well maintainable in this forum and there finds no dispute to such a fact.
18. As regards the issue of non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, as raised by the O.Ps, this is too not acceptable on the same principle as mentioned above and also on the ground that the entire railway service is supervised, monitored and managed by the Indian Railways.
19. Now, so far as the issue of cattering service and pantry car is concerned, what it is seen is that, generally such a facility is found to have been provided particularly in the long route trains for the convenience of the passengers to avail their food, tiffin and meals in such long distance running trains which is basically required for the item of necessity and for that of the comforts of the passengers. So when cattering service has been provided by Railway and particular trains do possess pantry car for the very purpose, then obviously the passengers boarded into the train and travelling therein have got the right prima facie to seek for such facility and in availing the same for their easy and comfortable journey. It is found that the cattering service usually is supported there with the menus and the price list fixed therefor circulated in such placed of the Railway compartment as it so happened in case of Puri-Jagadalpur Express filed under its Annexure-1 by the complainant and thereby the passengers come up with right in seeking the service from the pantry car and the servers meant for such service.
20.. As we find, the allegation of the complainant in the instant case, is of deficiency in service in the cattering system and service followed and found in the Dhanbad Express in the occasion of the impugned date of journey from Allepy to Sambalpur. From the very evidence appended to the matter through the 3 annexures, it cannot be denied that there remains certain deficiency in the service of the catterers and that of the other railway employees in supplying the complaint book but as we observe the situation and the circumstances those prevailed in Complaint Case No.66/2013 was somehow alarming and stood on a different footing. As it is vehemently opposed from the side of the O.Ps in this case seeking and countering sufficient evidence to prove the matter as discussed in para-14 and 15 above, it was not so in Complaint Case No.66/2013, where the O.P. remained all along silent over those matters in protesting the case of the complainant and rather it can otherwise be said that they admitted on the other hand such negative activities of the railway staff in extending their services. However, when the railway has engaged its employees in different services for smooth management of administration, any short fall or deficiency coming out from their side would not only be ensured by the wrong doers but also by the authority, the Railway Department. Law is well settled that he who employs another to do something does it himself. More so, if a person owed a duty to care and commits breach of that duty, he is said to have committed negligence and therefore has to be taken into task.
21. In the premises, the complaint case is allowed and we consider it proper to award a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) towards mental agony and cost of litigation of the complainant to be paid by the O.Ps within one month from the date of order. At the same time we also alert the railway authorities to remain vigilant henceforth in implementing the rules regulations and procedures those were framed and meant for the smooth management of the running of the trains, the journey and comforts of the passengers and that of the efficient administration of the railway department and take necessary actions against the wrong doers as and when necessitated.
