RESERVED

     STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                       APPEAL NO. 2573 OF 1999

              (Against judgment and order dated 19-08-1999 in Complaint

             Case No. 513/1994 of the District Consumer Forum, Basti )

Union of India and 3 others

Through General Manager

N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur.

                                                                                          ...Appellants

                                                           Vs.

1. Dr. S R Singh, S/o Ram Sahay Singh 

2. Manoj Kumar Singh, S/o Dr. S. R. Singh

3. Smt. Neelma Singh, W/o Manoj Kumar Singh

4. Surendra Pratap Singh, Advocate.

S/o Rananjay Singh

5. Smt. Manju Singh, W/o Surendra Pratap Singh

6. Surveshwar Singh, S/o Surendra Pratap Singh

7. Prashant Singh, S/o Surendra Pratap Singh

8. Nirupma, D/o Surendra Pratap Singh

9. Manish Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Raj Singh

All R/o Avas Vikas Colony Gandhi Nagar

District Basti

                                                                                                  ...Respondents

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUAMR, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MR. VIKAS SAXENA, MEMBER

For the Appellant                 :    Sri M. H. Khan, Advocate.

For the Respondent              :    None appeared.                 

Dated :  17-01-2022

                                                  JUDGMENT

          PER MR. VIKAS SAXENA, MEMBER

:2:

This appeal has been filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the judgment and order dated 19-08-1999 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Basti in Complaint Case No.

513/1994 Dr. S R Singh and others V/s Union of India and others.

The brief facts giving rise to the complaint as stated by the complainants are that they got reserved their berths in three tier second class railway coach from Railway Station, Delhi, for their journey from Basti to  Hazipur in Train No. 5610, Avadh Assam Express for date 12-06-1993 by paying the prescribed fees and charges. The main grievance of the complainants is that when they reached at Railway Station, Basti on 12-06-1993 to board on the said train, it was found that the Coach No. S-2 of their reserved berths was not attached with the aforesaid train from Delhi as per information they got from the staff of the said station. The complainants then approached to the concerned railway officials of the coach as well as staff of the railway station for their accommodation but no one paid any heed to their request. Nevertheless, they started their journey in the aforesaid train in general coach to resolve the matter during the journey and reached Gorakhpur Railway Station but there also they got no help from the competent railway authorities for their adjustment in the aforesaid train in a reserved coach. Being disappointed they started their journey by road and engaged taxies to complete their journey. Thereafter, they moved suitable applications to the opposite party for refund of fare alongwith proper interest but their effort was fruitless as no communication was received from the competent authorities of railway administration/opposite party. As a result the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint before the learned District Consumer Commission.

After giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties the learned District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint by the impugned judgment and order dated 19-08-1999 in favour of the complainants with the direction to the appellant/opposite party for payment of Rs.1,500/- each to the nine complainants for their harassment and mental torture and also directed to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum if the awarded sum has not been paid within two months of the order. The District Consumer

:3:

Commission also awarded cost of the case Rs.500/- each of the complainants.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned judgment and order the appellants preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

The main grounds taken in the memo of appeal are that the impugned order dated 19-08-1999 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Basti

is illegal, unjust and is contrary to the provision of legal provisions and Railways Act and Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The impugned judgment has been passed against facts and law. It is categorically stated in the memo of appeal that the complaint filed by the complainants for the refund of railway fare is barred by law as this relief is fully covered under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 which bars the jurisdiction of other courts and authorities under Section 15 of the same Act.

The learned District Consumer Commission has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the complainant alongwith their family members suffered physical and mental inconvenience due to negligence or default of Railways, which is covered under 'deficiency of service' as defined in the Consumer protection Act. The learned District Commission has erred in not considering the facts that the aforesaid complaint has been filed essentially for the refund of the railway fare, which can be adjudicated by a Railways Claim Tribunal only, by virtue of Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which bars the jurisdiction of Courts and all other authorities. It  is further stated in the memo that when the complainants found that their coach was not attached to the train they should have approached concerned railway officers and authorities of railway station Basti for their adjustment in other coaches but the complainants failed in giving such an intimation, while on the other hand the appellant adduced witnesses and evidence that TTE and Conductor of the coach at Railway Station, Basti tried to adjust all the passengers who reserved their berths in coach No. S-2 which was not attached with the train on the said date. The complainants failed to approach the railway officers unlike  other passengers, who were suitably adjusted in other coaches. The complainants by their own choice preferred to go by road and later on they concocted a

:4:

false story of their efforts for their accommodation in the other coaches of the train. The learned District Consumer Commission has passed the impugned order in utter disregard of provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 and Railways Act, 1989, therefore, the judgment deserves to be set aside.

This appeal was filed in the year 1999 and notices were sent to respondents/ the opposite party by registered post on the address given in the complaint but they did not appear before this Commission and hence arguments of learned Counsel of appellant Sri M H Khan, Advocate were heard on date 13-12-2021.

The complainants in this complaint have sought refund of the fare paid by them with interest thereon and the learned District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint with the findings that the claim of the complainants is not barred as per Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987for which the Commission has given the reasoning that as per Section 15 only the question of refund of the fare can be exclusively adjudicated by the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 13(1) and 13(1A) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 but in this particular case the complainants have also prayed for some interest on the amount of refund. Moreover, by not attaching the coach S-2 in the train in question the appellants have caused 'deficiency in service'. For these reasons the claim of the complainants can be decided by the District Consumer Forum and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is not barred regarding this matter.

In this case the appellant has refused to honour the claim of the complainants on the ground that the remedy sought in the complaint is barred by Section 15 and Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987. This is contended by them that reliefs asked for by the nine complainants before the District Consumer Commission for the refund of railway fare is fully covered under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 and the Section 15 of the same act bars jurisdiction of all  Courts and authorities other than Railways Claim Tribunal in respect of the prayers sought in the complaint for adjudicating and granting the same reliefs. Therefore, it is clear that the provisions of Section 13 read with

:5:

Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, are need to be examined for the rival contentions in respect of the jurisdiction of Consumer Redressal Agencies. In view of the case pleaded in the memo of appeal the core question required to be decided in this appeal is that -

whether the complaint regarding refund of railway fare is maintainable before the Consumer Fora or not.

 This question was raised before the learned District Consumer Commission and the Forum ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the District Consumer Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and allowed the same.

For considering the plea taken by the appellant in the memo of appeal it is found necessary to deliberate over Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 which is reproduced as below:-

“On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in ¹ [sub-sections (1), (1A) and (1B)] of section 13.“

From the perusal of the Section 15 it is revealed that the jurisdiction of any other court or any authority, other than Railways Claim Tribunal has been excluded in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 1(A) of Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Section 13 of the same Act has been given hereunder:-

13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.(l) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act—

(a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter-VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-

(i)  compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;

(ii)  compensation payable under section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and

:6:

(b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.

1    [(1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of section 12A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claim for compensation now payable by the railway administration under section 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder ]

(2) The provisions of the [Railways Act 1989 (24 of 1989)1 and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.

Again on considering the Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 it may be observed that the case of the complainants is covered under Section 13(1A) of the above Act as the complainants have claimed compensation on the ground of inconvenience and trouble caused to them due to alleged negligence of railway authorities/officials when the coach S-2 was not attached in the train in which the complainants have reserved their berths for their journey from station Basti to Hazipur, therefore, it is covered under the remedy provided under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989.

The Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989 is again reproduced here.

 [124A. Compensation on account of untoward incident.—When in the course of working a railway an untoward incident occurs, then whether or not there has been any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the railway administration such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured or the dependant of a passenger who has been killed to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, the railway administration shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, be liable to pay compensation to such extent as may be prescribed and to that extent only for loss occasioned by the death of, or injury to a passenger as a result of such untoward incident: Provided that no compensation shall be payable under this section by the railway administration if the passenger dies or suffers injury due to—

:7:

(a) suicide or attempted suicide by him;

(b) self-inflicted injury;

(c) his own criminal act;

(d) any act committed by him in a state of intoxication or insanity;

(e) any natural cause or disease or medical or surgical treatment unless such treatment becomes necessary due to injury caused by the said untoward incident.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “passenger” includes—

(i) a railway servant on duty; and

(ii) a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travelling by a train carrying passengers, on any date or a valid platform ticket and becomes a victim of an untoward incident.]

  Thus 124A of the Railways Act 1989 provides that in course of working of a railway any untoward incident occurs, such as would entitle a passenger who has been injured due to any neglect or default on the part of the railway or its staff the passenger can claim compensation for the loss occasioned by any ‘injury’ as a result of such untoward incident. In this particular matter the case of the complainants comes under the compensation claimed for their injury caused to them due to negligence or default by railway or its officials when their coach was not attached in the train wherein they have booked their berths for their journey even after paying appropriate fare and charges for the same. This inconvenience or trouble may be characterized as a legal injury in legal sense. The term ‘injury’ in legal parlance is quite vide and covers all types of harms, inconvenience and troubles by default of any other person.

In  'Clark PLC dictionary of legal terms and idioms'  the definition of ‘injury’ has been given as-

Injury is a comprehensive term for any wrong or harm done by one person to another person’s body, right, reputation or property and is an interference with an individual legally protected interest. A civil injury is any damage done to person or property i.e precipitated by a breach of contract, negligence or breach of duty.

:8:

Similarly the definition of injury given by dictionary of Gerald N. Hill and Kathelin T Hil (copy right @ 1981-2005) is  as below-

• Any harm done to a person by the act or omission of another. The injury may include physical hurt as well as damage to reputation, dignity, loss of legal right or breach of contract. If a party causing the injury was either wilful or negligent, then he/she is responsible and liable for payment of damages for the harm caused.

The aforesaid definition given by the legal dictionaries clearly indicates that the complainants in this particular case have sought compensation for the infringement of their legal right to travel in the compartment which has been reserved by them by paying an appropriate charges for the same and this inconvenience or trouble comes within the ambit of the legal term ‘injury’ defined under Section 124A of the Railways Act and, therefore, comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal in view of Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 and therefore the jurisdiction of civil courts or other authorities including Consumer Fora is barred by virtue of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987.     

The same view was taken by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of  Northern Railway, through its G.M. V/s Dr. N K Singla   reported in II(2016) CPJ 642 (NC). In this case the complainant booked a circular tour ticket for journey in 3AC class for two adults by paying appropriate charges. The complainant found that he had been overcharged for the aforesaid ticket and there was no train having 3AC coaches yet the railway issued the ticket by charging for 3AC class. Consequently the complainant had to suffer in parching hot conditions of Rajasthan in the month of July. The complainant sought refund the difference between the charged fare of 3AC and fare of an ordinary train. The Hon’ble National Commission decided that the complainant filed the complaint for refund of the excess amount was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora and dismissed the complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach Railway Claims Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

This view was again reiterated by the Hon’ble National Commission in

:9:

the case of The General Manager, Northern Railways and others V/s Dau Dayal Chaturvedi reported in 2010(3) CPR 81(NC). In this case the complainant reserved a special train for journey of various religious places and deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- for the said purpose. The complainant and other passengers found that special train consisting of different types of bogies and there were other matters of inconvenience caused to them during the journey as there was no water facility etc. Moreover due to negligence of railway authorities one lady passenger met with a fatal accident and died. The complainant sought compensation. The Hon’ble National Commission decided in this case that a bare reading of the provisions of Section 15 and 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 the claim for refund of fare or excess fare etc. and compensation due to injury to a passenger could be made only before the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and not before any other court or forum like Consumer Forum.

Considering the Sections 13, 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 read with Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989 and in light of the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, and in view of on the above discussion, the bench reaches on the conclusion that in this complaint the complainants have sought refund of fare and compensation for infringement of their legal right as the railway authorities did not keep their promise to provide a reserved berths in a coach even after complainants have paid appropriate charges for the same which is clearly within the purview of Section 124A and within exclusive jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal and on the basis of Sections 13 and 15 jurisdiction of courts or other authorities other than a Railways Claim Tribunal, have been barred and therefore the reliefs claimed by the complainants cannot be granted by the District Consumer Commission or any other Consumer Fora. The complaint deserved to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. By the impugned order the learned District Consumer Commission has allowed the complaint, assuming the jurisdiction, therefore, the judgement and order is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

                                       ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the District

:10:

Consumer Commission is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.        

           ( Justice Ashok Kumar )                           ( Vikas Saxena )

           President                                                    Member                                                                                 

          Pnt

          Court-1