1.       This appeal is filed by original opposite party (for short O.P.) Nos.1 and 2 against the order dated 30/08/2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum of Gondia, in Consumer Complaint No. 26/2013 by which the complaint has been partly allowed.

2.        The case of the original complainant/respondent herein, as set out by him in consumer complaint filed by him, before the Forum is brief is as under.

3.        The complainant resides at Gondia. He had taken journey cum reservation ticket at Gondia for under taking journey from Videsha to Gondia by train number 18238, named as Chhattisgarh Express. He boarded the said train at  Habibganj Railway Station on 03/11/2011. He occupied berth No.11 in coach No.SL-11. There was no water and electric light in the toilet of that coach. The complainant could not lodge complaint about the same with T.T.E. as he was not found in any compartment of the train. Therefore after completing the journey he lodged the complaint at Gondia Railway Station. He obtained information under  Right to Information Act from the O.P. to the effect that there was no T.T.E. deputed in the aforesaid coach due to shortage of staff and there was no water amenity provided to the coach on the concerned date. Therefore complainant filed the consumer complaint against the Divisional Commercial Railway Manager (O.P.No.1) and South East Central Railway (O.P.No.2), claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- with cost of Rs.10,000/- from them.

4.        The O.P.No.2 did not appear before the Forum despite service of notice. Therefore Forum proceeded ex-parte against O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.1 appeared before the Forum and filed reply and their by opposed the complaint. The O.P.No.1 submitted in brief that it has not rendered deficient service to the complainant and that the Habibganj  Railway Station is not under the jurisdiction of Central Railway. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation did not supply sufficient water on the concerned day and therefore the water could not be filled in the train on 04/11/2011 at Nagpur Railway Station. It is denied that there was no T.T.E. in the aforesaid train at the relevant time. It is denied that there was no light in the compartment and therefore it was prayed that complaint may be dismissed.

5.      The Forum heard both the parties and considered evidence brought on record and passed the impugned order. The Forum came to the conclusion under impugned order that the O.P.No.1 admitted in the letter that the Nagpur Municipal Corporation did not supply water in the aforesaid train and therefore they were unable to provide water facility. The Forum also observed that the O.P.No.1 also admitted that due to acute staff position, coach No.11 was unmanned. Therefore considering the said admission of the O.P.No.1 and considering the Citizen Charter on passenger service of Indian Railway discussed in the impugned order, the Forum held that the O.P.No.1 rendered deficient service to the complainant. Therefore Forum directed the O.P.No.1 to pay the complainant compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization of same by him and also to pay him cost of Rs.10,000/-.

6.       As observed above, this appeal is filed by O.P.No.1 against that order. The learned Advocate of both parties filed their respective written notes of arguments.

7.      The learned Advocate of the appellant in brief submitted that the Forum did not appreciate the technical reasons mentioned in the reply of the appellant as filed before the Forum and erred in holding that O.P.No.1/appellant rendered deficient service to the complainant. He also argued that the Forum has not considered the letters issued by Railway Administration showing the real fact and thus passed the erroneous order. He also argued that there is no basis for awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-. He therefore requested that the impugned order may be set aside.

8.   On the other hand the learned Advocate of the original complainant/respondent herein in his written notes of arguments supported the impugned order and relied on the Citizens Charter referred to in the impugned order. He also relied on the observations made in the following cases in support of his submission that appeal is liable to be dismissed.

a)  Northern Railways…….V/s…..Prakash Chandra, III (2006) CPJ 335. The learned Delhi State Commission observed that remedies under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are independent and in addition to and not in derogation to provisions of any other law.

b)   Haryana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited……V/s……Jagdish Lal, (2014) 3 SCC 156. In that case Managing Director of the appellant was directed to pay expenses of  litigation to the complainant.

9.      It is seen from the Citizens Charter referred to in the impugned order that Indian Railways are duty bound to provide adequate amenities in the trains. However in the instance case, no water was provided in the toilets as admitted by the O.P.No1. The said admission is given in the letter dated 14/06/2012. Moreover there is also admission on the part of the O.P.No.1/appellant that due to shortage of staff, the T.T.E. was not provided to the concerned coaches of the train. In our view when the requisite amenities of water and electric light were not provided in the concerned coach of the train for the whole period of journey of complainant from Vidisha to Gondia, it can be said that O.P./appellant provided deficient service to the complainant/respondent herein.

 10.       The Forum has therefore rightly assessed the compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the complainant by O.P.No.1. There is no merit in this appeal and hence it deserves to be dismissed.                 

                           // ORDER //

I.      Appeal is dismissed.

II.     No order as to costs in appeal.

III.    Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.