AKALANKA JINDAL vs Union of India

-SHRI Akalanka Jindal and Smt. Chaya Jindal, the appellants who are not only husband and wife but also senior citizens, filed their complaint before the D.F. with the allegations that in order to undertake journey from Jaipur to Mangalore via Agra on 29.10.1992, they had purchased a joint ticket for train No. 2626, leaving Agra Cantt Station on 29.10.1992. From Jaipur to Agra Fort they had to undertake journey in second class but from Agra Cantt to Mangalore their seats were to be reserved in first class compartment. They boarded the train from Jaipur on the scheduled date and reached Agra Fort Station at Agra. From there they reached Agra Cantt Station in order to board the train No. 2626. But to their surprise they came to know that their seats had not been reserved in the first class compartment. Despite efforts they could not get seats in the first class compartment and therefore they had to undertake journey from Agra Cantt to Mangalore in second class. Their further case was that being senior citizens and also highly placed in social life they had to suffer great inconveninece in the journey undertaken by them. They accordingly alleged that the respondent had rendered deficient services to them and claimed compensation for mental agony at Rs. 39,000/-.

THE respondent contested the complaint of the appellant mainly on the ground that the appellants never enquired about their reservation at Agra Cantt Railway Station. The D.F. accepted the version of the case as given by the respondent and dismissed appellants complaint vide its order dated 19.4.1996 giving rise to the present appeal before us.

The appeal was decided by us vide our order dated 23.10.1998 and the claim of the appellant was accepted to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- for inconvenience and loss caused to them and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. The order so made by the Commission was however set aside by the Hon''ble National Commission in Revision Petition Nos. 79 and 80/2001 on the ground that the respondent did not have proper opportunity of being heard before making the said order by us.

THE respondent was given proper opportunity of being heard and both the parties have now been heard at sufficient length. The facts as stated above are not much in dispute save to the extent that whereas the appellant stated that they had boarded the train from Jaipur and the train terminated at Railway Station Agra Fort and therefrom they had gone to Agra Cantt Railway Station where on search and inquiry they did not find their names included in the passengers who had been allotted reserved seats in first class compartment, on the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the appellants did not make any inquiry at the Cantt Railway Station, Agra and, therefore, they cannot complain of any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

WITH a view to resolve the controversy between the parties we repeatedly enquired the respondent if it was in a position to produce the copy of the chart which has been placed by them in the notice board at Agra Cantt Station, showing the reservation of seats in first class compartment. No such information could be given to us. No copy of chart was also produced before the D.F. Under such circumstances we see no good reasons to reject the statement on oath of the appellants in their affidavits. We accordingly hold that the appellants had undertaken a journey from Jaipur to Mangalore via Agra and that they had to travel in first class compartment from Agra Cantt to Mangalore but such reservation seats were not available/made available to them and, therefore, they had to travel in the second class compartment. Consequently we hold that the respondent had rendered deficient services to the appellant. Insofar as the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the appellants is concerned we find that both of them are senior citizens. With their advanced age they had to undertake a very long journey from Agra to Mangalore. Shri Jindal is a retired selection grade ex-member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service and his wife was the President of the Innerwheel and District Treasury and Rotary Club. Above all, the parties are in litigation for more than a decade. Such being the facts we see no good reasons to differ from the view taken by us in the earlier order. In the result, the impugned order of the D.F. is set aside and the appeal allowed. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience to the appellants plus Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation within a period of 2 months from today failing which the aforesaid amounts shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from 23.10.1998. Appeal allowed.