AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 698 wordsTHIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Kasaragod, in O.P. No. 214/95. Opposite party is the appellant.
WE heard the Counsel for the appellant. On going through the order we are unable to sustain the same. It is true that the complainant got reservation from Kasaragod to Changanassery in Malabar Express on 1.1.1995. When the train reached Calicut the complainant was asked to vacate and get into some other compartment, since the said compartment was not fit to continue travel. They promised also that on reaching Shornur they would once again give berths in sleeper coach. But on reaching Shornur they were guided to another compartment attached to the front side of the train next to engine which had already been occupied by general ticket holders as it was an ordinary general compartment. In the circumstances the complainant and his family were put to great hardship and he claimed compensation of Rs. 40,000/-.
A version was filed by the opposite party in which it was stated that when the train reached Calicut the Carriage and Wagon Superintendent stated that on examination of wheel of the relevant coach it was found heated and the inner race of the bearing was broken and the rollers inside were jammed. Since there was possibility of major accident by continuing the journey with the same coach, the said coach was detached and the passengers of the compartment were asked to get into another compartment. No other sleeper coach was available and it was under those circumstances for reasons beyond their control that the coach had to be detached. Before the District Forum no evidence was adduced by the complainant. On behalf of the opposite party, RW 1 and RW 2 were examined. RW 1 was the Carriage and Wagon Superintendent and he deposed that on examination the wheel of the relevant coach was found heated and inner race of the bearing was broken and the rollers inside were jammed. Since there was possibility of major accident the same coach was detached and the passengers were asked to get into other compartments. There was no extra coach in Calicut Railway Station. In cross-examination RW 1 stated that the documents are available at Kozhikode Railway Station to show that there was fault to the coach in question at the relevant point of time. RW 2 was the T.T.E. working in Southern Railway on the relevant date. He would swear that on 11.1.1995 he was in duty in coach S1 and S2 from Kannur to Ernakulam. He stated that the coach in question was detached from Calicut due to mechanical defect and there was no extra coach to accommodate reserved passengers. Since no sleeper coach was available at Shornur also one general coach was attached in which there was no ordinary passengers.
THE evidence tendered by RWs 1 and 2 stood uncontroverted. THE definite case of the opposite party is that there was no sleeper coaches available at Calicut or Shornur to be attached as a reservation compartment. It is also their definite case that no other ordinary passengers were allowed in the coach attached to the train. THEre is no evidence to the contrary in the case. In the circumstances we are unable to find any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in not attaching the sleeper coach. In this context we may refer to a decision of this Commission in Divisional Manager v. Aboobeckar Haji, I (1992) CPJ 16=1991 (2) CPR 248. This Commission held that cancellation of A/C chair car coach was because of mechanical defect and alternative arrangement was not possible due to non availability of an A/C coach and as such no deficiency can be attributed to the Railway Administration. That is the view taken by the Tamil Nadu State Commission in 913/94 and in Appeal No. 268/93. In the circumstances we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that they are prepared to refund the difference in the fare and that is recorded. The opposite party will sent difference in fare to the complainant. Appeal allowed.
