FIRST ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT vs SANDEEP ROY CHOWDHRY

THIS appeal is by the opposite party, First Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Madras Central against whom an award has been passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras (North).

THE three complainants (the respondents herein) who are the officers of Standard Chartered Bank, booked onward and return journey tickets for their travel from Madras to Mettupalayam and back with the opposite partyRailways. After enjoying their holidays in Ooty, when they approached the concerned Railways Authorities on 11.12.92 they were shocked to learn that their return tickets were cancelled because of messages from Madras. THEy were forced to make their return journey by taxi spending Rs. 550/- per head. Due to the long journey two of them could not attend the bank of 14.12.92 and other attended with great difficulty. When the matter was taken up with the opposite party they requested the complainant to collect refund of the fare. When the complainants sent lawyer''s notice demanding compensation, the opposite party replied that they were responsible only to refund the fare. THE Act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and that had caused hardship to the complainants. On these allegations they filed the complaint for compensation. The opposite party in their written version admit that the reservation of the complainants were cancelled at Mettupalayam because of the messages from Madras. However they would contend that if the complainants had produced the tickets and verified with the Station Master, the reservation would have been restored and the descripancies could have been rectified, but the complainants have chosen their own mode of journey. They further contend that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Railways.

The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and it awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- besides refund of the fare of Rs. 279/- to each of the complainants.

NOW, in the appeal it is contended that the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside as it is against the evidence and probabilities of the case. We do not agree. It is not disputed that the 3 complainants were informed that their reservation had been cancelled at Mettupalayam. According to them they were shocked on this and then they made alternative arrangement by journeying to Madras in a taxi. We do not understand the opposite parties stating that if the complainants had produced the tickets and verified with the Station Master, the reservation could have been restored. Certainly deficiency on the part of the opposite party is there and that cannot be disputed. As regards the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded, we are of the view that considering the circumstances of the case that is on the higher side. We fix it at Rs. 6,000/-. With this modification of the order, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.