BHAVANI SHANKAR SINGH vs Station Master

THE present appeal has been filed assailing the order of the District Forum-II, Sundargarh passed vide Complaint Case No. 28/1995 dated 22.4.1996 dismissing the claim not being justifiable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

THE facts briefly stated are that the complainant had reserved the Berth No. 44 in 2nd Class A.C. from Nazamuddin to Rourkela. He had every reason not to be disappointed after receiving confirmation in a 2nd Class A.C. berth. But to his utter surprise on the last moment when he was to board the train he found the Coach No. S-7 to have been detached from the train without any prior intimation to him. THE claim of the complainant for compensation was resisted by the Railway Authorities. THE stand taken by them was that the case is not maintainable as the Coach No. S-7 was found defective for which the same was detached and, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any relief. The learned District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the complainant''s case as not maintainable.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as respondent at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/materials on record. It is not disputed that the appellant had got advance reservation for journey from Nizamuddin to Rourkela Railway Station by Utkal Express on 15.5.1994. It is also not disputed that the complainant had confirmed reservation for the above said journey for himself in a berth in 2nd Class A.C. It is also undisputed that on 15.5.1994 when the complainant reached the Railway Station, he came to know that the said Coach No. S-7 was not available. Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for Railways submits that the coach itself turned out to be defective due to mechanical snag for which the same was detached. Though we have appreciated the submission of Mr. Mishra that the Railway Authorities might have their own explanation to offer but the inconvenience caused to the complainant and other passengers who were to travel with him could be well imagined. There is nothing in the written version explaining the situation. Nothing is filed as to what alternative arrangements the Railway Authorities made at that particular moment for the persons having reserved accommodation in the coach in question. We find and thus hold that the complainant has made out a case but his case has been dismissed by the District Forum. Even for the present, no document has been annexed or produced before us by the Railway Authorities to substantive the above contentions.

IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find and held that the complainant has proved his case and the complainant in this instant case had cause of action and locus standi to make a claim against the Railway Authorities. We, therefore, held that the order and findings of the learned District Forum in the circumstances is unsustainable. Hence, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum. As such in the result, the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the respondent (O.P.) who is directed to re-imburse the appellant, with the differential cost of the ticket. The appellant is also entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for mental agony and harassment undergone by him, due to default of the Railway Authorities. The O.P. is directed to make the above payment within 60 days of the receipt of this order failing which the appellant will be entitled to interest on the above amount of Rs. 2,000/- at the rate of 12% per annum, from date of purchase of ticket till payment. The present appeal is disposed off. Appeal disposed of.