Delhi

StateCommission

A/359/2016

DIP LAL SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Hearing:01.10.2018

                                                                                                              

                                                                   Date of decision:10.10.2018

 

 

First Appeal  No. 359/2016

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Dip Lal Sharma

H. No. 1017, Akshardham Apartments

Pocket-III, Sector-19,

Dwarka, New Delhi                                                                     …..Appellant

 

VERSUS

 

General Manager

Northern Railways

Baroda House

New Delhi                                                                                 ….Respondent

 

 

HON’BLE  SH. O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE  SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?             Yes     

 2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                   Yes

 

 

Present:       Sh. Raghubir Singh, Counsel for the appellant.

                             Sh. S.A. Sattan, Counsel for the respondent

                  

PER:           ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1.           Aggrieved by the orders dated 18.03.2016 passed by the District Forum Disputes Redressal II, New Delhi in CC-561/2012 in the matter of Dip Lal Sharma versus General Manager, Northern Railways New Delhi, dismissing the complaint on merit, Sh. Dip Lal Sharma has preferred an appeal before this Commission, for short appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Act, against the General Manager, Northern Railways hereinafter referred to as Respondent, assailing the said order and praying for the relief as under:-

 

1. The Northern Railways may be directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. One lakh as compensation for deficiency in service as the incident happened on 25.12.2011 at Railway Station, Jalandhar had caused heavy damages to the mental as well as physical health of the appellant which took many days to recover from the fearful anxiety,
2. That the Northern Railways be directed to take remedical measures to avoid recurrence of such incidents and in case of eleventh hour change the stoppage time of the train be enhanced.

 

2.           Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are these.
3.           The appellant, a senior citizen had visited Punjab, Baich Baja, Hoshiarpur District in December 2011 alongwith his spouse. While returning to Delhi on 25.12.2011 the appellant had confirmed tickets for self and for his spouse by Swaran Shatabdi Express from Jullundhar. The said train departs from Jullundhar for Delhi at 18.01hrs. For catching hold the train the couple came to Jullundhar Railway Station on the date of Journey at about 16.00hrs. The case of the appellant is that the train they had to board was scheduled to arrive at Platorm no. 2. But allegedly at the last moment the Railway Authorities changed the platform for the said train from 2 to 3, though parallel not requiring the passenger to climb the stairs and come down, and on platform no.2 the Chhatisgarh Express was signalled to come in. As a consequence thereof the public space on the platform became crowded. The allegation of the appellant is that no announcement was made for shifting of the train, aggravating the problems of the passengers inasmuch as movement became very difficult and it became more difficult for the persons who are more than 85 yrs old. Both the appellant and his wife found the entry into compartment they were booked, very difficult since the halt of the train at Jullundhar was for a very short period of time. The train originates from Amritsar and not Jullundhar as stated by the respondents/OPs in their defence. This Commotion resulted in their health problem. Under these circumstances the complaint was filed before the District Forum for award of compensation, alleging deficiency of service, which complaint having been dismissed on merit, this appeal has been preferred before us for the redressal of their grievances.
4.           The respondents were noticed and in response thereto they have filed reply to the appeal resisting the appeal emphasising the point that there is no deficiency of service on their part as whatever happened on that day was out of administrative exigencies.
5.           The appeal was listed before us for final hearing on 01.10.2018 when the counsel for both sides appeared and advanced their arguments. We have perused the records of the case and given a careful consideration to the subject matter.
6.           In the first instance we note that the delay in filing the appeal has already been condoned vide proceedings recorded on 03.05.2018. Accordingly we proceed to adjudicate the matter on merit.
7.           Short question for adjudication in the matter is whether there was deficiency on the part of the Railways qua the appellant and, if so, whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed for.
8.           Adjudication in the given case has to be rendered keeping in view the fact that the age of the appellant or his spouse travelling with him is above 85 yrs. Person of this age may not be able to walk without hiccups. Body functions, hearing or vision are never cent percent perfect. Infact the authorities may have to arrange for the wheel chair for the movement of the passengers of such advanced age from one place to another within the periphery of the platform or railway station. Secondly movement of the passenger of the two trains, one arriving at platform 2 and the other at platform 3, adds to the misery of the passengers who owing to the advanced age cannot be free from problems and such problems are aggravated when there is a change of platform for the departure of the train, they are booked, may be the changed platform is parallel to the original announced platform. Thirdly, we cannot escape our attention to the fact that the train by which the appellant had to travel to Delhi has the prescribed halt of only a few minutes at Jullundhar and within that time to be able pick up the train at the last minute changed platform is something very difficult if not impossible particularly in respect of the passengers of the age of appellant. In our view if the change of platform was necessarily required in administrative exigencies, the railway authorities having all the records of the passenger boarding the train, their age, could have assisted the passengers boarding the train. That is the least the railway authorities having gigantic mammoth administrative machinery at their command, are expected of and that responsibility not having been undertaken, they are in our view apparently deficient in rendering service qua the appellant and his spouse. Having regard to this, orders passed by the District Forum holding that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Railways cannot sustain and it is accordingly set aside.  
9.           Having reached to this conclusion that the railways were deficient qua the appellant, the core question for determination is the relief they can be considered to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Union of India and Anr versus Dr. Mohan Lal Gupta as reported in I [2011] CPJ 38 (NC) is pleased to hold that the railways are duty bound to ensure safety of passengers in trains or in the area belonging to the Railways and maintained by them. Short of provision to such safety the passenger affected is entitled to compensation.
10. Compensation can never be codified. It depends on facts of each case. Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the appellant and his spouse are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 50,000 (at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- each) and we order accordingly. Railways are directed to pay the compensation awarded to the appellant within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
11. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Forum for information.
12. File be consigned to record.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (GENERAL)                                                                           MEMBER (JUDICIAL)