Delhi

StateCommission

A/11/613

NORTHERN RAILWAYS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NANGI DEVI & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

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

                                                                    Date of Arguments:  23.11.17

          Date of Decision:      07.12.17

First Appeal No. 613/2011

In the matter of:

General Manager

Northern Railway

Baroda House

New Delhi.                                                                                                      Appellant                                                                                 Versus

Nangi Devi & Others

All through Shri Duli Chand

S/o  Shri Ram Lal

R/o H.No.91, Gali No. 11

New Rohtak Road, Anand Parbat

Delhi-110005.                                                                                                                                     Respondent                      

CORAM

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

SHRI O.P. GUPTA(MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

          OP has challenged order dated 14.06.11 passed by District Forum-II in CC No.750/06.  Vide impugned order District Forum allowed the complaint and directed appellant to pay jointly and severally to each complainant the cost of their reserved tickets amounting to Rs.151/- and Rs. 5000/- as compensation for inconvenience, uncomfort, mental agony inclusive of cost of litigation.

2        Facts recited in the impugned order are that on 19.08.05, in order to participate in Mela of Lord Ram Devraji,  118 complainants purchased railway tickets for journey from Delhi to place of Mela and return tickets from Jodhpur to Delhi for 03.09.05.  The complainant performed journey on reserved tickets from Delhi to Ram Devraji but they could not undertake their return journey from Jodhpur to Delhi in reserved compartment as same were not attached to the train named Malani Express(No.4060-A).The details of the PNR nos. of the tickets were given in para 3 of the complaint.  82 complainants were to travel in reserved coach bearing No. S-4 and remaining 36 in coach No. S-5.  The train left Jodhpur at 01.00 A.M. in the night intervening 3-4 Sept., 05 but above mentioned coaches were not attached to it.   A complaint to said effect was made at Jodhpur railway station as well as Sarai Rohilla on 04.09.05. Complaint was also made to different authorites including Railway Minister and Hon’ble Prime Minister .  Ops were negligent in not providing reserved coaches in the aforesaid train.  Number of complainants were aged persons, women and children.  They  all suffered a lot.  They had to incur expenditure for paying extra fare for buses and taxis and could not reach their destination of business.  They also suffered a lot of inconvenience.  Hence they filed complaint for refund of Rs. 151/- for each reserved ticket as price thereof, and compensation of Rs. 24,000/- for inconvenience, uncomfort, physical and mental agony, Rs. 15,000/- for compensation for causing deficiency in service and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.       Appellant contested the case on the plea that on 02.09.05 train No.4059 Delhi-SMEE Malani Express left with 19 coaches with 5 GS instead of GSCZS with same sitting pattern. On their return journey on 03.09.05 from Jodhpur to Delhi some coaches were attached to accommodate these passengers. OP provided suitable accommodation for transportation of complainants on the same day itself. As per IRCA Coaching Tariff No. 25 Part-I (Vol.1) Rule-306 Railway owns no guarantee even for reserved accommodation and admit no claim for compensation.  District Forum, New Delhi has no jurisdiction as cause of action arose at Jodhpur which is covered under North West Railway. Complainant has not made North West Railway as party. Thus complaint is bad in law and is not maintainable.

4.       Complainant filed affidavit of some of them.  As compared to it OP did not file any evidence.  Both parties filed written arguments.  After going through the material on record and hearing counsel for the parties, District Forum passed the impugned order.  It came to the conclusion that plea of that  had completed their onward journey comfortably in the same reserved coaches then the question of causing mental harassment and uncomfort did not arise, was not sustainable.  Since OP did not adduce any evidence in this regard even by affidavit what to talk of documentary evidence so the plea of the OP could not be accepted. Complainant produced copy of complaint made by them at Jodhpur before departure of the train and also made another complaint at Sarai Rohella on 04.09.05 at 12.50 p.m.after  arrival in Delhi.  Pleading could not take place of proof.

5.       Objection of jurisdiction was overruled on the ground that complaint got their ticket reserved from Delhi where headquarter of Northern Railway lie and therefore District Forum at Delhi had jurisdiction.

6.       In appeal sole ground of attack by appellant is shelter of coaching tariff No.25 Part 1 (Vol. 1) Rule 306 which exonerates railway from compensation.

7.       We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.  Booking by complainant is not disputed.  It is not the case of the appellant that coaches No. S-4 and S-5 in which reservation was given, were attached with the train at the time of return from Jodhpur to Delhi.

8.       If the plea of the appellant is accepted that reservation does not confer any right on the passenger, that would defeat very purpose of reservation.  Obvious object of reservation is to ensure a confirmed seat in a particular coach. So mere travel in another coach/may be general compartment cannot make up the said deficiency.

9.       In Station Master and Anr. vs. Dr. P.Sridhar 1999 (3) CPJ 259 Andhra Pradesh State Commission allowed the complaint. It was held that no public notice was put up nor public was informed about non-availability of specific coach through public address system.  It was further observed that as issuance of ticket was computerized, appropriate instruction could have been fed into the computer so that such reservation could not have been affected.  The same was found to be clear deficiency in service.  It was held that it was unfortunate that reservations were lagging behind, rendering efficient and prompt service to the traveler despite inception of computerization and availability of modern technology.

10.     In G.M. Northern Railway vs. Manoj Kumar IV (2014) CPJ 559 National Commission held that when train is cancelled, intimation must be given.  Non giving of the same causes mental agony and harassment, it is deficiency in service. Least expected from railway was to intimate complainant about the cancellation of running train so as to avoid unnecessary trouble to visit the railway station to board train. Awarding of compensation by District Forum and State Commission was upheld.

11.     In Nizamuddin Railway Station vs. Asthana III(2010) CPJ 6 this Commission upheld the order of District Forum allowing the  complaint. Contention of railways that technical difficulty arose and so railway was not liable was rejected. It was held that liability of railways is absolute in character as there is no fault on part of passenger.  It was held that railways should have checked the coach and replaced the same in Delhi.

12.     In view of the above discussion we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.  Any how compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for each passenger is quite high, keeping in view the number of complainants which is 118.  Moreover the complainants had travelled by the same train which is established by the fact that they made complaint at Sarai Rohella railway station on arrival of train. They had not been able to prove that they spent any extra amount by  travel through bus and taxi. In these circumstances compensation of Rs. 1000/- for each passenger would have been sufficient, keeping in view the price of each ticket which is Rs. 151/- only.

13.     Before parting with the records we may observe that directions to OP to pay the amount jointly and severally is also unsustainable.  The reason being that OP No. 1 is Northern Railway though sued in the name of G.M.Northern Railways, OP 2 to OP 4 are Divisional Manager, General Manager, Divisional Railway Manager who are not personally responsible for the fault of railways.

14.To sum up the appeal is accepted in part . Impugned order is modified to the effect that Northern Railway would refund Rs. 151/- as price of the ticket to each of the complainant and pay Rs.1000/- as compensation to each of the complainant.

          Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

          One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

(ANILSRIVASTAVA)                                                                                                         ( O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                                                             MEMBER(JUDICIAL)