GENERAL MANAGER (NORTHERN RAILWAY) vs ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

THE present appeal filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 7.2.2000, passed by District Forum No. I in Complaint Case No. 2194/99 entitled - Sh. Anil Kumar Srivastava & Anr. v. Northern Railway & Anr.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent Sh. Anil Kumar Srivastava had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that he had got a confirmed reservation for his own self and his wife Smt. Nidhi Srivastava by Muri Express (8101 Up) in the First Class Compartment for 30.3.1997 to travel from Ferozabad (Uttar Pradesh) to Delhi. It was stated in the complaint that on the appointed day when the respondent with his wife and a daughter, aged only two and half months, reached at Railway Station Ferozabad and when the train (Muri Express) arrived at Ferozabad Railway Station there was no First Class Compartment and with difficulty the respondent boarded a Second Class Compartment which was over-crowded with passengers and the respondent had to travel in a standing position in that compartment from Ferozabad to Tundla. It was stated that at the Railway Station Tundla the respondent contacted the concerned TTE, who directed the respondent and his family to occupy Birth No. 39 of ST-3 Bogie which the respondent with his wife occupied after persuading the passengers, who were already in occupation that birth. It was stated that the respondent because of the above said harassment caused to him and his family including the infant child, suffered illness and had to be hospitalised. It was stated that though the respondent had received the refund of the difference of the railway fare, yet the appellant must compensate the respondent for the harassment Counsel to the respondent and his family. THE respondent, in the complaint, filed by him before the District Forum on the above count had claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for himself and a similar amount for his wife and further a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by way of litigation expenses. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant, who filed a written version. In the written version the stand taken by the appellant before District Forum was that as the First Class Coach in Muri Express was declared sick as a results of which the same could not be attached with the train and in place of the sick coach no other coach could be attached as there was no spare First Class Coach available. It was stated that the respondent and his family were properly accommodated in a Second Class Compartment and on the basis of certificate issued by TTE, difference in the railway fare had already been refunded to the complainant. It was stated that the respondent did not suffer any inconvenience and as such, was not entitled to any relief.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent, and has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. On the basis of the above findings, a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded to the respondent and his wife for the harassment caused and the inconvenience suffered. Further sum of Rs. 1,000/- is to be paid by the appellant to the respondent by way of litigation expenses in terms of the impugned order.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. In terms of the provision contained in Section 15 of the Act, a person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum can prefer an appeal against such an order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. However, proviso to Section 15 of the Act, provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the abovesaid period of 30 days, if it is satisfied that there was ''sufficient cause'' for not filing the same within the abovesaid period.

THE words ''Sufficient Cause'', occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act, are of utmost significance. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ''Sufficient Cause'', though deserves to receive a liberal interpretation, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though, no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ''Sufficient Cause'' in a given case, yet, again, as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ''Sufficient Cause''. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. It has been held by the National Commission in case Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority v. O.P Gauba, reported as III (1995) CPJ 18 (NC)=1986-1996 CONSUMER 2731 (NS), that proof of a ''Sufficient Cause'' is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion and delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned as a matter of generosity. Admittedly, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of 30 days. The same has been filed much after the expiry of the prescribed period on 5.9.2000. Alongwith the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The question requiring consideration at the threshold is as to whether the appellant has shown ''Sufficient Cause'' for not filing the appeal in time within the meaning of proviso to Section 15 of the Act. In the application, seeking condonation of delay, reason for not filing the appeal, has been stated in para 2 and the same reads as under : "That due to delay in co-ordination amongst various departments and zones of Railway and also laxity on the part of Railway staff of the concerned departments, the order passed by the District Forum on 7.2.2000, was not communicated to the concerned officials for the filing of appeal within time."

(underlined by us) If the above criterion is applied to the present case, it is noticed that the application filed by the appellant, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal miserably fails to meet the above requirement and in our opinion, whatever liberal interpretation might be put on the words ''Sufficient Cause'' it would be impossible for us to hold that there was no negligence or want of bona fide on the part of the appellant. Laxity on the part of the staff of the concerned department has been stated as one of the major causes for not filing the appeal in time. The same, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated or termed as ''Sufficient Cause'' within the meaning of proviso to Section 15 of the Act. In our opinion, the appellant, in the given facts has miserably failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and, therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, is hereby rejected.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, besides being barred by limitation is also devoid of substance on merits because as per appellant''s own case the First Class Coach which was to be attached with Muri Express at Tata Nagar on 29.3.1997 for journey to Delhi was declared sick from the starting station and if for any reason it was not possible for the Authorities of the appellant to make some alternative arrangements in that event the least which was expected was that prior intimation should have been given to the concerned passengers by the Railway Authorities that the train in question was without a First Class Compartment. This could have been possible in the normal course because only one First Class Compartment was to be attached with the train and the number of passengers travelling in the First Class, having reserved accommodation in advance, may not be that large and the Railway Authorities on the basis of details furnished in the reservation slips must be in possession of the particulars, more particularly, the addresses and telephone numbers of those passengers who intended to travel by the said train in the said Coach on the said date.

THUS, viewed from all angles, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.