(C. VISWANATH)

1.      The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioners against order dated 18.07.2014 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata(for short “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 446/2014 wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed.

2.      Case of the Respondents/Complainants is that they booked a tour programme through Kesari Travels from 04.10.2012 to 13.10.2012 to Kathmandu, Chitwaan, Lumbini and Pokhra. Travel tickets and hotel accomodation were reserved in advance. As per the tour programme, they were to catch the flight from Chattrapati Shivaji Terminal, Mumbai on 04.10.2012 at 10.30 am. Accordingly, they boarded the train from Haveri Railway Station on 03.10.2012, so as to reach Dadar on 04.10.2012 by 5.50 am. However, the train was delayed by 5 hours 40 minutes, resulting in their missing the flight. Their connecting flight had already left Mumbai Airport on 04.10.2012 at 10.35 am. Under compelling circumstances, Respondents/Complainants reached Mumbai Airport by taxi at 8.40 pm and purchased flight tickets afresh for Delhi by spending Rs.17,220/-. They further bought flight tickets from Delhi to Kathmandu for Rs.31,068/- and reached Kathmandu to join the tour programme. Claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners/Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer:-

“a)     That an order be passed in favour directing the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.3,10,378/- together with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization.

b)      Costs of the case may be awarded.

c)      Such other reliefs deemed fit be awarded.”

3.      The case was contested by the Opposite Parties before the District Forum. They contended that there are about 16 Railway Zones in the country and they are administered by one Authority and filing a Consumer Complaint against one establishment is bad in law and the Complaint be dismissed as barred by jurisdiction. It was submitted that the Opposite Parties/Railways did not guarantee the arrival or departure of the trains at the scheduled time and the train tickets were issued, subject to Rules and Regulations specified in the Tariff’s Time Table. There being no contract between the Parties, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. 

4.      The District Forum, having heard the Learned Counsels for the Parties and also considering the evidence and material placed on record, found that the Opposite Parties/Petitioners were deficient in service. District Forum allowed the Complaint in part and ordered as follows: -

“The Respondents jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.1,10,378/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand three hundred seventy eight) with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of Complaint till the date of payment within two months from the date of the order.

Further, the Respondents are directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) together to the Complainants and cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) within two months from the date of this order, failing which liable to pay  the interest at 10% p.a. till the date of payment.”

5.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Complainants filed an Appeal before the State Commission. After hearing Learned Counsels for the Parties and perusing the record, the Appeal was dismissed. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

6.      In the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties, this Commission was pleased to pass the following order on 14.07.2020: 

“None is present on behalf of the respondent. On the last date of hearing the following order was passed:

Though the link has been sent to the Respondent/complainant, but none is present on behalf of the respondent/complainant today. It is further seen that the respondent/complainant has sent a letter in the year 2017, that it is difficult for him to attend the proceedings in this case and the matter may be decided on the basis of his written submission and other documents, since then he has not been appearing. As the hearing is being done through video conferencing, one last opportunity is granted to the respondent/complainant to argue the matter on the next date of hearing, otherwise, the matter will be heard ex-parte and will be decided on the basis of the representation made by the respondent/complainant.”

Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner has been heard. Order reserved.”

7.     Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and have carefully gone through written submissions of the Respondents and the entire record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. Even if there was any deficiency in service, the same was on the part of the Central Railways and the Complainants/Respondents have not impleaded Central Railways as Opposite Party in the Complaint. The Complaint was, thereafter, liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.

8.     It was further contended by the Petitioners that the State Commission did not take into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. J.D. Suryavanshi AIR (SC) 2011 3605 wherein it was held that the Courts cannot interfere with regard to Administrative domain of the Railways and further that the “Railway administration is to decide where, how and when trains or coaches should be added or the timing should be changed.”

9.    It was also submitted by the Petitioners that the Fora below failed to appreciate that the Railways do not guarantee the time of arrival/departure of train regardless of what the delay might be and in this regard relied on Rule 115 of the Railway Coach Tariff No. 26, Part I, Volume I which states that :

“115. Punctuality of Trains- Railways do not guarantee the arrival or departure of trains at the times specified in the time table nor will they be accountable for any loss or inconvenience which may arise to passengers from delays or detention to themselves or their luggage.”

10.     The State Commission failed to take note of Rule 213.11 of Railway Coach Tariff No. 26, Part I, Volume I regarding non-commencement or missing of journey due to late running of trains, which provides

“(1) No cancellation charge or clerkage shall be levied and full fare shall be refunded to all passengers holding reserved, RAC and wait listed tickets, if the journey is not undertaken due to late running of the train by more than three hours of the scheduled departure of the train from the journey commencing station providing that the ticket is surrendered upto maximum time limits prescribed in clause (c) of sub rule (1) of Rule 6,

(2) where a passenger holding a ticket with or without reservation, misses connection of continued journey by another train at any junction owing to late running of the train by which he had been travelling the fare for travelled portion shall be retained and the balance amount of ticket shall be refunded as the fare of untravelled portion, without levying any cancellation charge or clerkage if he surrenders the ticket for such refund within three hours of actual arrival of the train by which he had travelled. The refund shall be granted at the junction station”

11.    It was contended by the Petitioners that the Respondents despite having knowledge that the train was already delayed by an hour at Haveri station and then again by 2 hours and 15 minutes at Miraj, did not cancel their journey through rail to get a refund of the respective amount and therefore, it is the negligence of the Respondents that they did not opt for other speedy means of transportation.

12.    The Respondents/Complainants in their Written Submissions/documents submitted that Central Railway is one of the 17 zones of the Indian Railways and all zones are not independent and they are one and the same. It is, therefore, not necessary to make Central Railways a necessary party.

13.   They further submitted that Central Railway in reply confirmed the delay of Chalukya Express by 5 hours and 25 minutes in reaching the destination was due to morning peak hours and suburban locals, the morning peak hours lasting from 8:00 AM to 11:00 AM. The Respondents contended that Chalukya Express was, however, stopped before peak hours at 6:30 AM.

14.   They further submitted that the State Commission had rightly interpreted Rule 115 of the Railway Coach tariff No. 26 par I, Volume 1 that the delay of more than three hours was not covered under the exemptions claimed by the Petitioners. They relied on Rule 11 of the Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No. 25 Part 1 Volume 1 which provided refund of full fare to passengers, if the journey was not undertaken due to late running of train by more than three hours of scheduled departure of the train.

15.    Brief facts of the case are that the Respondents/Complainants booked Deva Bhoomi, Nepal Tour from 04.10.2012 to 13.10.20102 through Kesari Travels. Flights bookings and reservations of accommodation were made by the Complainants in advance as per the tour programme. They were to reach Mumbai by train and catch the flight departing from Mumbai at 10.30 am on 04.10.2012. They booked railway tickets by Chalukya Express, departing Haveri on 03.10.2012, so as to reach Dadar on 04.10.2012 by 5.50 am. The train arrived at Haveri station one hour late and there was further delay enroute and the train reached Mumbai with a delay of 5 hrs. 40 minutes, by which time flight had already left Mumbai airport. They, thus, had to make bookings afresh from Mumbai to Delhi and further from Delhi to Kathmandu and with great difficulty joined the tour party at Kathmandu. They incurred an additional expenditure of about Rs.17,220/- on flight tickets to Delhi and Rs.31,068 on flight tickets from Delhi to Kathmandu, apart from other expenses and the money lost on tickets purchased earlier. A Consumer Complaint was, thus, filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Railways.

16.    The Respondents contested the Complaint on the issue of non-joinder of Parties and maintainability. Admittedly, the Complainants undertook their journey by Indian Railways from Haveri, very much within the limits of South-Western Railway. Further, at the time of boarding of the train, there was already a delay of one hour which increased further to 5 hrs 40 minutes by the time the train reached Mumbai. It is, therefore, very clear that the cause of action had arisen at Haveri Railway Station, in the jurisdiction of the Petitioners’ Railway Zone. A train starts at a particular station and in enroute may pass through other Railway Zones, before it reaches its destination. It is neither possible nor pragmatic for any Complainant/Passenger to file grievances against each and every individual Railway Zone or identify specific Railway Zone/Zones where delays have occurred and implead them as a Party. We are, therefore, unable to accept the Petitioners’ contention that non-impleadment of Central Railways necessitates dismissal of Complaint for non-joinder of Parties.

17.    Learned Counsel for the Petitioners referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. J.D. Suryavanshi AIR (SC) 2011 3605 wherein it was held that “Railway Administration is to decide where, how and when trains or coaches should be added or the timing should be changed. The Courts do not have data inputs, specialized knowledge or the technical skills required for running the Railways.”

18.    The issues raised in the above case basically related to additional works, completion of track works, extension of train routes and rescheduling of trains. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all such matters, which are purely administrative in nature, are within the domain of Railway Administration. The Courts do not have data inputs, specialized knowledge or the technical skills required for running the Railways. The facts in the present case are different and relate to delay in the running of the train causing difficulty, anxiety and loss to the travelling passengers.

19.    The Citizens Charter of Passengers Services of Indian Railways is a commitment of the Indian Railway Administration to provide safe and dependable train services. A train ticket issued by the Railways to its passengers spells out details of departure and arrival of the train. A ticket is a contract between the Railways and the Passengers for transport of passengers from one place to another with dates and times of departure and arrival.

20.    This Commission does appreciate that the Railways is a complex network and there may often times be delays due to several operational difficulties. However, it is expected that for the service provided by the Railways, the delay in reaching the destination should not be unreasonable. Delays due to any untowards instance such as breakdown, accidents or any other force majeure conditions certainly beyond the control of the Railways, are understandable. In the present case no such explanation has been offered for the delay of 5 hrs and 40 minutes in arrival of the train at Dadar Station, Mumbai. The Complainants were informed in the morning peak hours 8 to 11 am, trains would be regulated by giving preference to local trains but the delay in the running of Chalukya Express was at different durations of time even much before the peak hours in Mumbai. The Petitioners could not show or prove that there was any reasonable or legitimate reason for the delay nor that the late running of the train was beyond their control. Railways are a public utility service and tickets for the journey are issued after collecting charges from the passengers. Passengers travel by train to reach their destination comfortably in time. However, tickets issued and fares collected for the same, assume provision of satisfactory service. Delay of 5 hours and 40 minutes without any satisfactory explanation by the Petitioners in the instant case certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners. The Fora below, therefore, rightly held that the Petitioners were responsible for the hardship caused to the Respondents/Complainants, both physically and mentally as their entire tour program was affected.

21.    Although the Railways is liable to compensate passengers for undue loss, without sufficient justification, it is unreasonable to expect payment of compensation for any consequential losses, which is beyond the contract between the Railways and its passengers. In the instant case, we are not inclined to accept the Respondents’ contention that they should be compensated for the financial loss incurred on purchasing flight tickets from Mumbai to Delhi and further from Delhi to Kathmandu and other expenses incurred by them after having alighted from the train at Dadar Railway Station, Mumbai. The Fora below have erred in accepting the Respondents’ contention regarding assessment of loss beyond the journey with the Indian Railways. The Respondents, however, having suffered physical and mental agony due to the undue delay in arrival of the train at Dadar Railway Station, need to be compensated for the same. To that extent, we uphold the decision of the Fora below awarding a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainants and a cost of Rs.5,000/- for the mental torture and physical inconvenience.

22.    In view of the above, the order of the District Forum as concurred by the State Commission is partly upheld and modified as follows: -

The Petitioners are directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) to the Respondents alongwith a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which, an interest @ 9% is to be paid for the delay.

23.    The Revision Petition is disposed of on the above terms.