Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/667

RAMSEVAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

27 Mar 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

FA No.667 /2014.

 

Ramsevak Gupta,

s/o Shri Ganpatlal Gupta,

R/o Tejendra Nath Ki Gali,

Lohia Bazar, Lashkar,

Gwalior (M.P.).                                                                      …. APPELLANT.

 

 

VERSUS

 

1.         Union of India,

            Through General Manager,

            Northern Central Railway,

            Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.

 

2.         I.R.C.T.C. Limited,

            Through A.G.M.,

            9^th Floor, Bank of Baroda Bhawan,

            16, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

 

3.         Northern Central Railway,

            Thorugh Manager,

            Gwalior Railway Station,

            Gwalior (M.P.).                                                          …. RESPONDENTS.

 

           

BEFORE:

 

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

 

 

COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :

 

APPELLANT IN PERSON .

 

SHRI HIMANNCHAL SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 3.

 

SHRI RAJEEV JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

RESPONDENT NO.2

 

O R D E R

 

(Passed on 27/3/2019)

 

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shantanu S. Kemkar, J  :

                        The appellant – complainant had filed a complaint case number 402/2013 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the

-2-

“Act”) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gwalior (For short the ‘Forum’) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  He claimed compensation of Rs.30,000/- in all under various heads.

2.                     The case of the complainant before the Forum was that for some urgent work he and his son had to visit Ahmedabad from Gwalior on 16.4.2013.  He purchased tickets of train no. 12001 Shatabdi Express under “Tatkal Quota” for travelling to Agra Cantt from Gwalior as there was no direct train available for Ahmedabad.  For travelling onward journey from Agra Cantt to Ahmedabad he purchased tickets of train no.12547 under ‘Tatkal quota’.  The departure time of train No.12001 -Shatabdi Express from Gwalior was 19:10 hrs and arrival time at Agra Cantt was 20:30 hrs.  The train from Agra Fort to Ahmedabad (train No.12547 Agra Fort-Ahmedabad Superfast Express) was to depart from Agra Fort at 22.25 hrs.  According to the complainant Shatabdi Express in which he was travelling from Gwalior to Agra Cantt was unnecessarily detained between Hetampur and Dhoulpur stations as a result it reached Agra Cantt at 23.00 hours.  Because of delayed arrival of train no. 12001 at Agra Cantt by 2.30 hours he missed the train no.12547 from Agra Cantt for going to Ahmedabad causing grave inconvenience and mental agony to him. He therefore filed complaint case and claimed compensation as mentioned above.

3.                     The respondents filed reply and opposed the complaint filed by the appellant – complainant.  According to them if the complainant has missed his train from Agra Fort for travelling to Ahmedabad he could have applied for refund of ticket amount of the Train No. 12547 (Agra Cantt to Ahmedabad) as per the relevant provision for the same.  It has also been stated suddenly fire was erupted in coach no.2442 of Shatabdi Express and as such the train was stopped between Hetampur station and Dhoulpur station and as such it was delayed. It has been further stated that for delay in arrival or departure of trains at the time specified in time tables no liability can be fastened on Railways as the time-table as are mentioned are always the expected arrival and departure timings. It is stated that

-3-

there are delay in running of the trains for various reasons and if the same is caused and the complainant could not catch another train he at the most was entitled for refund of the amount of ticket fare of the train which he could not catch, in accordance with the provisions for the same, but the complainant did not apply for the same.

4.                     The Forum after considering the evidence led by the parties dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 06.03.2014 holding that as the train was detained due to sudden fire in one of the coaches of the Shatabdi Express there was justified cause for the delay. Aggrieved the complainant has filed this appeal.

5.                     The appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC for bringing on record documents received by him under Right to Information Act in order to demonstrate that on 16.04.2013 the coach number 2442 in which it was stated that the fire was erupted was not attached to the Shatabdi Express.  He, therefore, pointed out that the defence taken by the respondents that there was fire in coach No.2442 of Shatabdi Express which has occasioned delay of arrival of train at Agra Cantt is unsustainable.

6.                     The respondents did not file reply to the said application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.  On being specifically asked that whether they want to file reply to the said application, counsel for respondents categorically stated that the respondents are not intending to file reply and insisted that the appeal be heard and disposed of on the basis of record and also considering the documents filed on record along with the said application.

7.                     We have heard the appellant and the counsel for the respondents.  Perused the record.

8.                     In the reply filed by the respondents before the Forum they have taken a categorical stand that on 16.04.2013 train no. 12001 Shatabdi Express was delayed between Hetampur and Dhoulpur station as fire was erupted in its coach no.2442.  In paragraph 3 of reply in special objection again it has

-4-

categorically been stated that due to fire in the said coach no.2442 of Shatabdi Express, the train was delayed.  During the course of arguments also the said stand was supported inspite of contra documents being filed by the appellant along with application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.  The said documents obtained by the appellant under Right to Information Act clearly demonstrate as certified by Station Manager, Western Central Railway, Bhopal that on 16.04.2013 there were total 16 coaches. The details of the coaches are given in the said certificate which does not include Coach no. 2442.  Thus it is clear that the said coach number was not attached to Train no. 12001 Shatabdi Express In this view of the matter, stand taken by the respondents that there was fire in the Coach no.2442 of Shatabdi Express appears to be totally incorrect.  Even before us also no attempt has been made to explain the position.

9.                     However, on a close scrutiny of record by us we found that on 21^st February 2014, before the Forum, the appellant/complainant himself had filed a news item dated 17.04.2013 of daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar.  The said newspaper cutting filed by the appellant demonstrates that on Tuesday 16.04.2013 at about 7.15 pm between Dhoulpur station and Hetampur station there was fire in Delhi-Nizamuddin Rajdhani Express.  Due to fire in the said train, the train was halted and the bogie which came under fire was removed from the train.  This fact brought on record by the complainant/appellant himself shows that on 16.04.2013 at about 7.15 pm there was fire in Rajdhani Express between Dhoulpur station and Hetampur station.  Thus it appears from the appellants own showing that the said fire was caused in Rajdhani Express between Hetampur station and Dhoulpur station on 16.04.2013 at about 7.15 pm.

10.                   Thus it can safely be held that the Shatabdi Express train was delayed because of fire in bogie of Rajdhani Express between Dhoulpur and Hetampur stations and as such for this untoward incident of fire an usual delay of two and half hours has caused for which in our considered view, the respondents

 

-5-

cannot be made liable for the claim for compensation on the ground of deficiency in service.  

11.                   Now coming to the incorrect stand taken by the respondents to the effect that there was sudden fire in Shatabdi Express (in which the appellant was travelling) and because of it there was delay.  In this regard it is clear from the documents filed by the appellant with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC that the respondents have filed the reply very casually without properly enquiring about the incident and cause of delay.  This casualness on the part of respondents in taking the stand has to led the appellant to get the documents from the respondent under Right to Information Act and then he had file it before this Commission to falsify the incorrect stand. For such a serious lapse on the part of respondents instead of taking serious action against the erring officials of the respondents we deem it appropriate to saddle them with cost of Rs.15,000/- payable by the respondent no. 1 and 3 to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

12.                   The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                  

 

 

       (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)                  (Dr.Monika Malik)

                PRESIDENT                                                      MEMBER