Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved by/dissatisfied with the Order dated 12-08-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) in C.C. No. 418/2013, OP No. 1, i.e., the Station Master, Kolkata Railway Station has preferred this Appeal.

In a short compass, case of the Complainant before the Ld. District Forum was that, while returning home by Agra Cantt.-Kolkata SD Express (Train No. 12320) on 04-07-2013, he had a harrowing experience as the train went dry ever since it reached Mathura Junction and this continued till the train reached Mughalsarai Junction.  Although the matter was reported to the concerned TTEs, they did not showed least inclination to restore normalcy in the train.  Further allegation of the Complainant is that, the tube light in between Berth Nos. 1 to 8 went out of order and that he was charged extra for the drinking water bottle and food packet.  Complainant though lodged an official complaint in this regard on 29-07-2013, the same found its place in the waste paper bin.  Hence, the complaint.

OP No. 1 contested the case by filing WV.  It was the case of this OP that the Ld. District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint since the alleged incident took place beyond its territorial jurisdiction and this OP was in no way responsible for the alleged sufferings of the Complainant.  It was claimed that the alleged incident was never reported to any attendant of the train and further that the alleged complaint was signed by the family members of the Complainant.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 in person and perused the material on record.

The Appellant firstly disputed maintainability of the complaint on territorial ground.  According to the Appellant, as the alleged incident took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.

It appears that Agra Cantt. – Kolkata SF Express (Train No. 12320) belongs to the Indian Railways in Eastern Region.  Being the current operator of the said train, in our considered view, Eastern Railway could not completely wash its hands of so as to ensure availability of basic amenities in the train while the same was running impressing upon its counterparts to remain extremely vigilant in this regard.  It appears that the Kolkata Railway Station/Appellant (formerly known as Chitpur Station) is owned by the Indian Railways and operated by Eastern Railway Zone.  Since the office of the Appellant falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. District Forum, there seems no infirmity filing the complaint before it.  The objection of the Appellant in this regard is, therefore, not tenable.

The bone of contention primarily relates to non-availability of water in the train in between Mathura and Mugalsarai Stations.  It seems, the Agra Cantt.-Kolkata SD Express leaves Mathura Junction at 18.05 hrs. and reach Mughal Sarai Junction at 06.30 hrs. next morning. No doubt, if the train goes out of water for such long duration, it is bound to cause great discomfiture to its passengers, especially to elderly people. 

In order to prove his case, the Respondent No. 1 filed photocopy of a mass petition purportedly signed by his co-passengers.  Further, it appears that the Respondent No. 1 also sent a letter to the Railway Authorities on 29-07-2013 to air his grievance regarding his plight in course of said train journey.  On the other hand, in order to refute the contention of the Respondent No. 1, the Appellant has filed some reports, prepared by different Railway officials. 

Be it mentioned here that neither of the parties proved any of the aforesaid documents following due process of law.  Accordingly, we have no other alternative than to go by the circumstantial evidence to derive at a definite conclusion.

This is not the first time that fingers have been raised against the Indian Railways for their utter uncaring attitude towards passenger amenities in the train.  Long distance train running dry in course of its journey and/or food stuff selling at a premium within the station premises is such a common sight that hardly any passenger would deny it. The Respondent No. 1 filed photocopy of a mass petition purportedly signed by different passengers of the said compartment that they allegedly handed over to Md. Ismail, TTE at Naini Station to ventilate their grievance/frustration over the matter. 

Although the Appellant dubbed the same as a manufactured document and claimed that family members of the Respondent No. 1 put their signature to give it the colour of a mass petition, it appears, the said letter contains names of passengers, corresponding berth and contact (mobile) nos. Despite this, why did the Appellant make no such effort to ascertain the antecedents/bona fide of so-called aggrieved persons based on such information and hurled such wild allegation against the Respondent No. 1 without advancing any cogent documentary evidence/tangible proof in support of its claim is not understood.

The Appellant filed some reports purported to have been prepared by different Railway officials.  Curious enough, none of the said reports has been placed under affidavit.  In fact, it seems, the said reports have not been filed before the Ld. District Forum although the same stated to have been prepared before the date of hearing before the Ld. District Forum.  The same being in-house documents of the Railways, and most importantly, the same being placed on record in the wake of an adverse order delivered by the Ld. District Forum, the purported findings of the Railway officials can only be perceived as an abortive attempt on their part to cover up protracted negligence on the part of the concerned officials.  The documents being not proved following due process of law, it only erodes the evidential value of the same. 

It appears that the Respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint with the Railway authorities vide letter dated 29-07-2013, but the latter did not deem it worthwhile to show the bare minimum courtesy of acknowledging the said letter, let alone showing due solidarity with him or reprimand the guilty officials to remain careful in future or designate an official to cause an independent enquiry by calling up the Respondent No. 1 to record his version before him and thereafter prepare an enquiry report. Rather, the hush-hush manner in which clean chit has been given to the concerned officials is confirmation that it has not stirred the Railways into the remorse that precedes remedies. 

In view of such concurrent findings vis-à-vis Ld. District Forum, we are of considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is modified to some extent.

The Appellant, accordingly, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal stands allowed on part against the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is modified as under:

“The OPs shall jointly and severally pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order”.