AREA MANAGER, WESTERN RAILWAY vs Ramesh Chander

THE learned Ahmedabad City Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the appellant being the opposite party before it to pay Rs. 10,000/- for compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and hardship suffered by the respondent herein being the complainant, his wife and his minor son and also cost of the complaint quantified at Rs. 5,000/- as per its order dated 31.3.2000 rendered in Complaint No. 1255/98. THE parties herein will be referred to by their original nomenclature.

THE complainant approached the learned City Forum with prayer of compensation in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rs. 25,000/- for himself and balance amount for his wife and his son) as also reimbursement of the medical expenses in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of the complaint on the ground that the complainant in the company of his wife and son was travelling from Delhi to Ahmedabad by 2916 Ashram Express on 15.11.1998 and they boarded the train at around 6.30 in the evening. It was winter. THEy were travelling by 2nd AC Coach with confirmed tickets. THEy were supplied blankets, bed sheets/ covers, linen, etc. THEy immediately noticed the dirty condition of the said articles. THEy were found to be used once and not washed. THE complainant drew the attention of the train conductor as well as coach attendant with regard to the said dirty items supplied to the complainant and the members of his family. THE complainant received reply from the said officers that the problem was a continuing one in the train for a period of six months prior to the date of the incident and the officers were not able to convince the higher Authorities in that respect. THE complainant, therefore, immediately lodged a formal complaint with the train conductor and coach attendant in presence of witness also travelling in the same compartment. He was one Mr. Arvind C. Parmar of 53, Payal Park, Satellite, Ahmedabad-15. On account of such dirty articles to be used during the course of journey by the complainant, the complainant felt apprehension about himself, his wife and his minor son contacting infectious/contagious disease. THEy could not make use of the said articles with the result that they had to travel all throughout with the worst discomfort, passing sleepless night. THE complainant and his wife suffered cold and mild fever as a result of such a state of their travelling without blankets, bed sheets/covers, linen, etc. to be used in winter and that too in AC Compartment. THE opposite party resisted the complaint denying the allegations contained in the complaint raising technical objection of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the learned City Forum to entertain the complaint and taking the objection that the complainant did not produce evidence to show that he travelled by the train in question with confirmed tickets. Upon hearing of the parties and consideration of the material placed on record, the learned City Forum came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration in not providing with duly cleaned blankets, bed sheets/covers, linen, etc. resulting into a great deal of hardship, mental agony and suffering to the complainant, his wife and his minor son. Upon assessment of the compensation, the learned City Forum granted the amount as aforesaid. The Railway Administration feeling aggrieved with and dissatisfied by the aforesaid order has preferred this appeal before this Commission.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Railway Administration and the complainant have argued the matter before this Commission. Short question which was required to be considered by this Commission is whether there was adequate consideration for providing blankets, bed sheets/covers, linen, etc. in duly cleaned condition and if there was no adequate consideration the complainant could not be said to be a consumer. It was submitted by Mr. Shevde that only Rs. 30/- were charged from customer for supply of the aforesaid articles being used by the passengers travelling by 2nd AC Compartment. According to the submission of Mr. Shevde, the amount is too meagre to be said to be adequate. We are not inclined to accept this argument, firstly because on the face of it the same is not tenable inasmuch as if the services are attached with the particular class of tickets purchased by the passengers it would necessarily follow that the services are required to be rendered for consideration, whether Rs. 30/- are earmarked per passenger for the aforesaid articles or not. In the second place, it is.the Railway Administration who would stand in the form of a promisor for providing of service and the requisition for consideration flows from the promisor, i.e. the Railway Administration. Had the Railway Administration proposed more amount or ''adequate'' amount for the aforesaid services, the passengers availing of such services would not have any occasion to refuse payment of such amount. Therefore also, defence of inadequacy of consideration will not be tenable. Be that it may, it is obvious that the complainant being a passenger was not a gratuitous passenger. He did pay for the services which he hired. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the Railway Administration. The learned City Forum has referred to a decision of Honourable National Commission in the case of General Manager, South Eastern Railway v. Anand Prasad Sinha, I (1991) CPJ 10 (NC), where it has been held that where a passenger is travelling by train On payment of the stipulated fare charged for the ticket, he comes within the ambit of word definition of ''consumer'' and the facilities of transportation by railways provided by Railway Administration is very much ''service'' rendered for consideration as defined under the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The ratio squarely applies to the present case.

NEXT question is with regard to quantum of compensation. The complainant being a high official in the service of Central Government and being a Member of Indian Revenue Service has fairly stated before this Commission that he was not before the Consumer Forum for monetary benefit. He wanted to drew the attention of the Railway Administration with regard to how the services in the railway are deficient and unattended to. His was one specie of such service which was apparently deficient. He claimed such a huge amount only for the purpose of making it an eye-opener for all those who are performing their duties in the Railway Administration. He, therefore, gracefully left the quantum of compensation being decided even by this Commission. However, we are conscious of the principle that compensation has to be correlatable with the hardship suffered by the complainant. Even that principle has been supported by the Honourable National Commission in the aforesaid decision. The principles laid down in number of Motor Accident Claim cases by the Honourable Supreme Court with regard to compensation are required to be followed by the Consumer FORA. Needless to say that conventional amount on the head of pain, shock and suffering is settled at Rs. 5,000/-. Even if the amount settled by the Honourable National Commission in the aforesaid decision is taken into consideration it would be just and proper if complainant is awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- on the head of pain, shock and suffering or so to say on the head of mental agony, harassment and hardship suffered by him and members of his family. It is a different matter that he may not seek ''a pound of flesh'' in the ultimate recovery proceedings. Insofar as this Commission is concerned, just and fair compensation is to be fixed. We, therefore, propose to allow Rs. 5,000/- on the head of mental agony, harassment and hardship suffered by the complainant and members of his family. In the same manner, we propose to allow cost of Rs. 2,500/- being cost of the complaint which was necessitated on account of the complainant''s initial complaint having not been responded to by the Railway Authorities. In the result, we pass following order.

THIS appeal is partly allowed insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned. Instead of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- we allow Rs. 5,000/- and instead of cost of Rs. 5,000/-, we allow cost of Rs. 2,500/- insofar as the original proceedings are concerned. The impugned order shall stand modified in these terms. The said amount shall be paid over by the opposite party to the complainant within six weeks from today. The amount that has been deposited before the Forum shall be verified by the Forum and shall be paid over to the complainant by A/c Payee cheque. What is more important is that copy of this judgment might be circulated by the authorities of the Western Railways to all the Authorities of the Railway Administration in the country so that the employees or the persons working in the Railway Administration may start rendering their services properly. Appeal partly allowed.