DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, S.E. RAILWAY vs CHANDRA PRAKASH VALECHA

THIS is an appeal by opposite party against the order dated 12.3.1996 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur in their Case No. 846 / 95, wherein the District Forum has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainants, compensation of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 250/- as costs besides refund of reservation charges for not providing reserved accommodation in Sarnath Express for journey from Raipur to Satna on 14.10.1995.

HEARD the arguments of the appellant and perused the records of the case. The arguments of the appellant are as under : (i) Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to hear a complaint for refund of fare as barred by Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal. (ii) That it is published in Railway timetable and coaching tariff that Railway Administration do not guarantee reserved accommodation whether seats, berths, compartments, coaches, or carriage by any particular train and will not admit any claim for compensation for inconvenience loss or extra expense due to such accommodation not being provided or attached to train by which asked for. (iii) Due to shortage of S/1 coach, one GS coach was attached which had only 32 seats. As such according to the affidavit of TTE, first 32 passengers were allotted berths and the rest were advised to take refund as per Railway Rules.

Had it been a simple case of refund of fare jurisdiction of Consumer Forum would have been barred as argued. But it is not simply a case of refund. It is a case of inconvenience caused, for non-availability of reserved berth, apart from refund of fare. Passengers travelling by railway trains on payment of the stipulated fare charged for the ticket are "consumers" and the facility of transportation by Rail, provided by the Railway Administration is a "service" rendered for consideration as defined under the Act [I (1991) CPJ 10 NCDRC]. "Deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality, nature and manner of performance.

RAILWAY Administration issues two categories of IInd Class tickets one is for unreserved accommodation. The other is 2nd Class sleeper accommodation with confirmed reservation of berths or seats. Tickets for confirmed berths are issued well-in-advance and charges for the same are much higher than for unreserved accommodation. In the instant case, the complainant had purchased ticket from Durg quota though he was to board at Raipur by paying extra fare from Durg to Raipur. In almost 99.09% cases, passengers with confirmed reservation get berths or seats as reserved. It is only in .01% cases, where passengers with confirmed reservation fail to get the same. As such, public at large remains assured of comfortable journey in a reserved compartment. It is usually due to laxity of some railway employee or employees at any stage, that such lapses occur. Unless there are unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of mankind, such lapses should not occur. Non-attachment of a proper coach having required number of berths causes inconvenience to several passengers but hardly one or two approach appropriate Forums for redressal of their grievance. As such it is not only a question of giving compensation to those who approach Public Grievances Redressal Forum. The grant of compensation to the complainant serves as a deterrant for opposete party to be vigilant in future. RAILWAY Administration cannot get away from its responsibility by saying simply that it is published in RAILWAY Time Table that RAILWAY Administration does not guarantee reserved accommodation or will not admit claim for compensation when a bona fide traveller is a "consumer"; RAILWAY Administration is providing "service" of reserved accommodation for an extra "consideration" other than normal Second Class fare, it cannot get away with its responsibility for "deficiency in service" of not providing reserved accommodation. The deficiency of not attaching scheduled coach could have been condoned had the Railway Administration explained the unavoidable circumstances under which coach was not attached. But they have not done so. Their reply is vague and not based on facts after due enquiry. It is a routine type of reply that there was shortage of coaches and is not a reasonable explanation for "deficiency".

THE reply filed by the railway is as under : "On 14.10.1995 due to short composition of Train No. 4260 (Sarnath Express) received from Northern Railway and due to shortage of S-1 coach in which the reservation of the said complainant was made. But an alternative provision was made by utilising one GS coach No. 10455 to accommodate the reserved passengers of S/1 coach and there is every option of the passenger whether he prefers to travel or not, the full refund of fare and other charges are to the passengers who do not preferred to travel on such alternative accommodation." Train No. 4260 must have arrived at Durg on 14.10.1995 at 8.00 a.m. Had the railway been little vigilant they would not have issued tickets with reservation for more passengers atleast on 14.10.1995 and there would have been no occasion for a complaint sum of complainant. Not only this the Train No. 4260 must have left Chhapra on 13.10.1995 at 6.00 a.m. Railway has got its own telephone and telegraph lines and was not short of communication system and Railway Administration was aware of this situation thirty six hours ahead. Had these passengers having reserved tickets been made aware of non-availability of reserved accommodation in advance by announcements and publication on notice-board most of them would have either made some alternative arrangements or would have postponed their departure instead of having suffered mental or physical torture of sitting in a crowded unreserved compartment for complete 20 hours. It is very difficult to take a decision in less than 5-10 minutes, whether to undertake journey or not, after the arrival of train and usually the decision is to undertake, having come prepared to the Railway Station. Having no alternative, the passengers are literally forced to undertake journey. Thus, the Railway Administration is definitely liable for "deficiency" on their part.

AS such we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum and dismiss this appeal summarily. Appeal dismissed.