DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER vs UMESH PRASAD SINGH, ADVOCATE

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 24th April, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Vaishali at Hajipur in complaint case No. 9 of 1991 in which the appellants were the opposite party and respondent before this Commission was the complainant.

THE complainant had filed this case before the District Forum claiming compensation on account of the inconvenience and loss caused to him due to perpetual late running of passenger train No. 524 DN from Sonepur Railway Station of Muzaffarpur Railway Station. THE complainant claimed to be a monthly season ticket holder of that train who daily avails the services of that train. THE complainant filed the case before the District Forum claiming the following reliefs:- (a) To pay a compensatory amount of Rs. 10/- per day to the complainant and to all M.S.T. holders from 1.9.91 till the running of the train becomes normal. (b) Regular and timely running of the train be maintained at once. (c) Any other relief or reliefs to which the complainant and other aggrieved persons deemed fit and entitled.

Notice was issued to the opposite party and written version was filed on their behalf alleging inter alia that the Railway takes all means and precaution for timely running of the trains according to the time schedule but due to misuse of emergency chain and opening of vacuum valve by the passengers the observence of the time table becomes impossible and the trains are made to run late because it is made to stop from place to place due to unnecessary chain pulling by the passengers and the passengers themselves are responsible for the late running of the trains. The opposite party also challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum.

On the basis of the complaint petition and the counter version, the District Forum decided the case and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- by way of compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of the impugned order.

IT may be mentioned that the District Forum has decided the case on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant and the counter version with regard thereto on behalf of the opposite party only without any evidence being produced by the either side or in support thereto. Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) envisages the settlement of the consumer disputes on the basis of the evidence produced by the complainant and the opposite party. But in the instant case neither any affidavit was filed nor any witness was examined on oath by the parties. On this ground alone the impugned order is fit to be set aside. Moreover, neither there is any allegation by the complainant nor any material has been produced by the complainant to show that the train was running late due to the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Section 14(1)(d) of the Act very clearly lays down that a complainant is entitled to get compensation only when the negligence on the part of the opposite party rendering services is established. A Consumer Court under the Act can direct the opposite party to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. In the instant case the opposite party asserted that for the late running of the train, the passengers themselves were responsible as they indulge in unnecessary chain pulling and opening of the vacuum valve. The complainant has not alleged in his complaint petition that the late running of the train was due to negligence on the part of the opposite party nor there is any evidence to indicate so,

UNDER these circumstances we find that there could be no justification for the District Forum to award compensation to the complainant. Hence the impugned order can not be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed. The parties will bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.