The judgment and order dated 4.10.1997 passed by the District Forum; East Khasi Hills District at Shillong in C.P. Case No.12(S) of 1996 is the subject matter under challenge in this Appeal. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows:

 

2. According to the Appellant herein, on 31-8-1994 he applied for reservation of carriage/coach to the respondent no.1 for visiting the holy place of Pilgrimage in and around the Assam area for 48 passengers including himself; and in response to the said reservation letter of 31-8-1994, the respondent/opp. Parties asked the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs5,000/- only with the station superintendent, Dharmanagar and to send the certified copy of the money receipt to the office of the respondent/opposite party no.1 by 3-10-1994 and, accordingly, the appellant/complainant deposited the security deposit of Rs.5,000/- under a related money receipt dated 26.9.1994 and, thereafter, on 10-10-1994 the Opposite party No.1 issued a circular to all concerned with a copy of the complainant/appellant stating inter alia, about the confirmation of one extra coach for the said journey and the date of journey was fixed on 22.10.1994 from Dharmanagar to Lamding by 203 Passenger Train and then on 23.10.1994 from Lamding to Tinsukia by 5905 up Train and, the return journey was on 25.10.1994 from Tinsukia to Lamding by 5906 Down and, then on 26.10.1994 from Lamding to Dharmanagar by 204 DN Train. It is also the case of the appellant/complainant that he purchased the ticket from Dharmanagar and paid a sum ofRs.15,840/- only for 48 passengers including himself and on 22.10.1994, when the appellant/complainant reached the Dharmanagar railway Station along with his party consisting of many small children and aged people he found that no extra coach was provided to the train no.203 passenger but later on the complainant/appellant was provided with another coach No.GSCN-1666 by vacating the other passengers from the coach which was not meant for the reserved passengers and the same had to light, water and some locks were also broken and, in the next morning i.e. on 23-10-1994, another bogie No.1655 was given to the complainant and his party to travel from Lamding to Sepekhati which was more worst than the previous bogie from Dharmanagar to Lamding and, similarly, for the return journey also the coach given to them was not better than the earlier one as it had no bulb/light and the complainant/appellant and his party traveled the whole night. Being dissatisfied, the complainant/appellant brought the aforesaid facts of defective service and harassment to the opposite party no.1 vide his letter dated 8.11.1994 and, thereafter, the appellant/complainant has been informed about it but nothing was heard from the opposite parties/respondents and, as such, on 9-5-1995 the complainant/appellant again sent a reminder to the opposite party No.1 informed the complainant/appellant at his Shillong address that the matter has been thoroughly investigated and he expressed the deep regret and further informed that the coach in question was wrongly attached to the Trains on both Up and Down directions and the defaulting staff are being dealt with accordingly, but the Respondent No.1 did not refund the security money nor paid any compensation for the suffering as was claimed by the complainant/appellant in his letter dated 8.11.1994 as in Annexure-A/7 to the complaint petition but, lastly the authority concerned/respondent argued to the claim of the complainant for refund of security money only and demanded the original receipts and tickets etc. but they remained silent about the payment of compensation on account of sufferings, harassment and mental agony. It is also urged that the complainant/appellant informed the opposite party that he is unable to supply the original receipts, tickets etc. as the same are needed for filing the case. Hence, the complaint before the District Forum.

3. The case of the complainant/appellant is resisted by the opposite parties/respondents by filing written reply statement and by contending inter alia, that the cause of action arose at Dharmanagar and, as such, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint; that the complainant miserably failed to submit the original security money receipt along with other documents despite the letter dated 16.11.1995 as in Annexure 1 to the written reply and, as such, the respondents/opposite parties were unable to refund the security deposit to the complainant/appellant and that the coach so managed to the complainant was a GSCN Coach according to the requisition of the complainant and there is no proof of defect in the said coach and, as such, the opposite parties are not liable for compensation  for alleged sufferings, harassment and mental agony as claimed by the complainant. It is also the case of the opposite parties/respondents that the complainant neither registered any complaint in the originating stations both on Up and Down directions of the journey and, had they found any defect of the coach or lack of any amenities, they should have brought it to the notice of Station Superintendent at Dharmanagar, the originating station of their journey or any way side which they have miserably failed to do it and, in fact, the complainant and his party completed their journey but now the complainant filed this complainant with a malicious intention to obtain a gain in their favor. After receiving the letters dated 8.11.1994 and 8.5.1995 from the complainant, the respondents/opposite parties had taken up the matter which has been duly informed to the complainant and, apart from that, when the general manager concerned asked the complainant to submit some documents to entertain his case for refund of security money, the complainant did not submit the same but filed the complainant before the District Forum. According to the respondents, the complainant had to obtain a coach release certificates from the Station Superintendent of the terminating station regarding correctness of other amenities, fittings etc. provided to them in the journey which the complainant/appellant had failed to do it and, moreover, the complainant and his party used the coach roughly and they also damaged all the amenities of the coach thus, causing loss to the national property.

 

4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the District Forum disposed of the case under the impugned judgment and order by holding that the security money shall be refunded by the opposite parties to the complainant and that it has to be done when the complainant deposit the original security receipt to the opposite parties and thereafter, the opposite shall make necessary payment immediately failing to do so it within a period of 30 days, an interest @ 20% per annum shall accrue till final payment of the same. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum and whether the appellant could make out a case to justify his claim or not.

 

6. A bare perusal of the available materials on record shows that the complainant/appellant or any one of the 48 passengers neither registered any complaint at the originating station at Dharmanagar nor at any way side station both Up and Down directions of the journey and apart from it, neither the complainant nor any of the said passengers had ever obtained a Coach release certificate from the authority concerned particularly, the Station Superintendent of the terminating station regarding the correctness of condition and other amenities/fittings, supply provided to them in the journey. It is also not disputed that the complainant/appellant only filed the complaint petition before the District Forum. On further perusal of the complaint dated 16.4.1996 of the complainant/appellant shows that there is no even a whisper that the appellant/complainant had filed the said complaint in a representative capacity and none of the other passengers authorized him to file the complaint on their behalf. It is only the complainant who made the claim for refund of security amount of Rs.5,000/- and for payment of compensation/damage for sufferings, mental agony to the complainant for 48 passengers @ Rs.2,000/- per month but, it is note worthy to mention that not a single passenger out of the said 48 passengers except the present appellant/complainant came forward and supported the claim of the present appellant/complainant came forward and supported the claim of the present appellant/complainant. There is also no document on record authorizing the complainant to pursue the matter before the District Forum as well as before this Commission on behalf of other passengers for the relief sought for in the complaint petition. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum made the following related findings and observations:

 

            “The train journey for the said pilgrimage by the complainant along with 48 passengers was performed as per complainant on 22.10.1994 and terminated on 26.10.1994, but the written complaint of the complainant could show of any written complaint lodged to any of the Station Master when the coach to his satisfaction was not provided, rather the complainant along with other 48 passengers did perform the journey and there is no evidence to support his allegations that the coach provided was after vacating the other passengers which had no light, water and with dirty sanitary and that some locks was also broken. Nowhere the complainant could show as to why he is not supposed to deposit the original security money receipt along with other relevant documents as asked by the Opposite parties for refunding his security money. When such was the steps taken by the complainant, whether non payment of the security money the opposite parties can be held liable for the same. Indeed the opposite parties on this count cannot be held responsible if the complainant is not complying with that he is incumbent to furnish and deposit the original receipt of the security money along with other documents.

 

The complainant through this instant complaint though valued the case at Rs.50,000/- yet made a prayer for relief of Rs.2,000/- for each 48 passengers to lodge a complaint on their behalf through him and whether any permission of the Forum has yet been obtained for that purpose. Indeed the procedural law provides that one person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit or case, one or more of such person may, with the permission of the court, sue or be sued, etc.. This is as per Rule 8 of Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Neither any authority from the 48 passengers where claimant is praying for relief in their behalf nor the permission of the Court was obtained for lodging this instant complaint on behalf of the complainant and the other 48 passengers. Therefore the complainant cannot take the instant complaint in a representative capacity without the involvement of all the 48 passengers and in absence of any authority and the permission of this Forum.

 

In conclusion therefore, save and except the refund of the security money by the Opposite Parties to the complainant and that is to be done when complainant deposit the original security receipt to the Opposite, other relief claimed by the complainant in this case are not well founded. The complainant shall forthwith deposit the original security money receipt to the opposite parties who shall make necessary payment immediately, failing to do so within a period of thirty (30) days, interest at the rate of 20% per annum shall accrue till final payment of the same.”

 

7. In our considered view the District Forum had dealt with the matter exhaustively and passed a reasoned judgment and order in the matter and, as such, no interference of it is called for.

 

8. For the reasons, observations and discussions made above, we are of the view that the present appellant/complainant could not make out a case to justify the interference with the impugned judgment and order.

 

9. In the result, this appeal is devoid of merit and, accordingly, it is dismissed thus, affirming the impugned judgment and order of 4.10.1997 passed by the learned District Forum, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in C.P. Case No.12(S) of 1996. No order as to costs. The office is directed to supply copy of this judgment and order to the parties concerned. The complainant/appellant is at liberty to take back 3(three) original documents marked as Annexures 3, 5 & 6 i.e., the security deposit receipt, railway office letter dated 10.10.94 and Blank Paper Ticket bearing No.423951 by today itself.