JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

REVISION PETITION NO.3164 OF 2014

1.      Complainants had booked railway tickets for travelling from Jhansi to Vardha, in Rapti Sagar Express on 18-03-1992. The complainants were also allotted births against the reservations made by them. When the complainants reached Jhansi Railway Station, they came to know that they had been allotted births Nos.67 and 68 in Coach No.S-7. The same was the coach number indicated on their ticket. On reaching Coach No.S-7 they found that births Nos.67 & 68 had been allotted to some other passengers who were travelling to Madras and had been occupied by the said passengers. The complainants could not locate the conductor of the coach either on the platform or in the train. As a result, they along with their five months old child were compelled to sit on the floor of the compartment. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners, the complainants approached the District Forum with the following prayer:

i.        Direct the opposite parties to refund the reservation cost of Rs.55/- to the complainants,

ii.       Direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.45,000/- to each complainant (total Rs.90,000/-) on account of mental agony and physical torture.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioners, who admitted the booking made by them as well as allocation of births in Coach No.S-7. The contention of the petitioners before the District Forum was that allotment to the complainants was made in Coach No.S-5 instead of S-7 and since the train originated from Gorakhpur it was not possible to interfere with the reservation chart. It was also alleged in the reply that the aforesaid information about the change of coach was repeatedly announced on the platform.

3.      The District Forum vide its order dated 26-06-1996 directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for the harassment suffered by them. The petitioners were also directed to refund the fare charged from the complainants and to pay Rs.5,000/- to them as the cost of litigation.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioners approached the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission) by way of an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed in default on 16-08-2012 since there was no appearance on behalf of the complainants or on behalf of the petitioners.

5.      Being aggrieved of the dismissal of their appeal the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

REVISION PETITION NO.3165 OF 2014

6.      This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 30-11-2010 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the District Forum dated 09-03-1998 was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.

7.      The case of the complainants was that they had booked births in Bundelkhand Express for travelling from Jhansi to Varanasi on 20-04-1996 but when they reached the railway station no first class coach was attached to the train. It was also alleged in the complaint that when the complainants requested the railway authorities to accommodate them in some other boggy they misbehaved with them. Being aggrieved from the deficiency in service and the misbehavior of railway officials the complainants approached the District Forum seeking the following reliefs:

i.        Pay, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- to complainant No.1 and Rs.60,000/- each to complainants Nos.2 and 3 towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainants,

ii.       Pay, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this petition.

8.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioners inter alia on the ground that the first class coach having been gone sick at Varanasi railway station, it was not attached to the train bound for Gwalior. Thus, it was an admitted fact that no first class coach was attached to the train despite booking having been taken for travelling in the first class coach.

9.      The District Forum vide its order dated 09-03-1998 directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.500/- each to the complainants. They were also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as the cost of litigation.

10.    Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed in default vide order dated 30-11-2010, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

REVISION PETITION NO.3166 OF 2014

11.    This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 03-12-2010 dismissing in default the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the District Forum dated 27-05-1998.

12.    The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that he had purchased ticket for travelling from Indore to Kanpur by Chhapra Mail. The aforesaid train met with an accident when the complainant was travelling in it with his minor child. The accident occurred on account of a railway trolley having been negligently left on the track by railway employees which caused derailment of three coaches from the track. As a result the railway traffic was disrupted for the next 24 hours and the complainant could not reach Kanpur. A glass chandelier worth Rs.5,000/-, which he was carrying with him, was also destroyed.

12.    Being aggrieved from the deficiency in service provided to him by the railways, he approached the District Forum seeking the following reliefs:

i.        Money spent for purchasing ticket from Indore, for staying there and for travelling expenses.                                                             Rs.500.00

ii.       Cost of glass chandelier and its packing expenses                   Rs.5000.00

iii.      Cost of four ticket for wife and family members and                   Rs.2000.00

          for their mental suffering.

iv.      Claim for physical injuries and for their treatment             Rs.3000.00

v.       Compensation for professional loss due to accident                 Rs.2000.00

vi.      Taxi fare from accident site to Urai                                                 Rs.500.00

vii.     Compensation for mental injury                                        Rs.12000.00

viii.    Cost of four tickets from Agra to Urai                                   Rs.276.00

ix.      Expenses for registered letter and typing, etc.                                Rs.75.00

x.       Amount paid to advocate for notice                                      Rs.200.00

xi.      Professional fee paid to advocate for conducting case   Rs.2000.00

Total                                                                                             Rs.27,571.00

13.    The District Forum vide its order dated 27-05-1998 directed the petitioners to make the following payments to the complainants:

(a)     Taxi fare from accident site to Urai        :                                       Rs.400.00

(b)     Compensation for physical injury                                      Rs.1,500.00

(c)     Difference of fare from Urai to Kanpur  including                 Rs.98.00

three-tier reservation charges

(d)     compensation for loss in profession                                   Rs.2000.00 14.  Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the petitioners approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed in default they are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.   

15.    A perusal of the applications seeking condonation of delay would show that the appeals were assigned to Shri Siddharth Verma, Advocate, who told the petitioners that he would get a notice of hearing from the Court as per rules but no notices were served either on the petitioners or on their advocate informing about the listing of the matter. The applications would further show that on 21-03-2011 the petitioners sent a letter to                 Mr. Siddharth Verma requesting him to provide the current status of six cases including the present cases. Responding to the said letter                Mr. Siddharth Verma informed that all the matters were still pending in the Court and he also requested the petitioners to withdraw the files from him since he was busy with his work in the High Court. Thereafter, on            17-03-2013 the matter was assigned to one Mr. P.J. Khan, Advocate who informed the petitioners about the dismissal of the appeals only in March 2014.

16.    The petitioners have not placed on record any letter from Shri Siddharth Verma, Advocate stating therein that the petitioners or its counsel would get a notice of hearing from the State Commission. Though it is claimed that Mr. Siddharth Verma had informed the petitioners that all the six matters, referred in the letter of the petitioners dated 21-03-2011 were still pending in the Court, the said letter had not been filed by the petitioners. No affidavit of Mr. Siddharth Verma, Advocate has been placed on record. Moreover, the applications seeking condonation of delay are silent as to the date of the letter whereby Mr. Siddharth Verma is alleged to have informed the petitioners that the matters were still pending in the Court. In my view, instead of resting at writing the letter dated 21-03-2011 to the standing counsel Mr. Siddharth Verma, some responsible officer of the railways should have personally contacted the advocate to ascertain the status of the cases which were subject matter of the letter dated        21-03-2011. This is also not the case of the petitioners that the letter dated 21-03-2011 was followed by subsequent reminders/letters to Mr. Siddharth Verma, Advocate and visits to his office. This becomes important considering that the date of the response alleged to have been given by  Mr. Siddharth Verma has not been indicated in the application. The application is silent as to the efforts made by the petitioners between       21-03-2011 and 17-03-2013 to ascertain the status of the matters which were subject matter of the letter dated 21-03-2011 sent to Mr. Siddharth Verma, Advocate. The obvious inference, therefore, is that no effort was made by the petitioners, for two years to find out the fate of their appeals. Moreover, no rule of the concerned State Commission, requiring notice to the counsel has been pointed out.

17.    Assuming that on 17-03-2013, the petitioners handed over the instant matter to Mr. P.J. Khan, Advocate, the new advocate, on receipt of the letter would have inquired from the State Commission with respect to the fate of the appeals filed by the petitioners and would have come to know about the dismissal of the appeals on 16-08-2012, 30-11-2010 and         03-12-2010. The case of the petitioners is that it was only in the month of March 2014 that they were informed of the dismissal of the appeals. Again, the communication whereby the petitioners claim to have received the information in March 2014 has not been placed on record. There is no explanation from the petitioners as to why the matter was not personally taken up with Mr. P.J. Khan by some responsible officer of railways after 17-03-2013 till the date a communication was received in March 2014 informing them of the dismissal of the appeal.

18.    The case of the petitioners is that the certified copies of the impugned orders were received by them on 15-04-2014. The revision petitions were not filed immediately thereafter despite the fact that the impugned order had been passed more than one and a half years before the communication in March 2014 was received and, therefore, the petitions had already become time barred. There is absolutely no explanation for not filing the revision petition soon after receiving the communication of March 2014.

19.    The objective of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to provide an expeditious relief to the consumer, who suffers on account of deficiency in services rendered to him. The Act aims at disposal of the complaint within three months. The said objective would be wholly frustrated, if such abnormal delays are condoned, without a satisfactory explanation having been given in this regard.

20.    In my view, the petitioners have failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the abnormal delay of 566 days in filing the revision petitions. Considering the failure of the petitioners to satisfactorily explain the aforesaid delay coupled with the fact that the amount involved is a very small amount I am not inclined to condone the aforesaid abnormal delay in filing the revision petitions. The applications seeking condonation of delay stand dismissed.

          Since the applications seeking condonation of delay have been dismissed, the revision petitions are dismissed as barred by limitation.