General Manager, Northern Railway vs MOHAN RAM

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 23.10.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Churu in Case No. 431/1996 by which the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay to the complainant respondent a sum of Rs. 1,000 as compensation and Rs. 200 as cost of litigation within two months.

IT may be stated here that on 20.1.1994, the complainant respondent along with his colleagues had purchased tickets bearing Nos. 72138 to 72140 from Jaipur Railway Station for travelling in Train No. 9711 from Jaipur to Churu. The train had reached at Railway Station Laxmangarh on time, but since there was derailment of goods train near Fatehpur, therefore, the train in question was stopped at Laxmangarh Railway Station and it had reached Churu with delay of 10-12 hours from scheduled time table. The learned District Forum, Churu has observed that if there was derailment, appellants must have made alternative arrangements for the passengers to reach their destination from Laxmangarh to Churu and for that deficiency, the above amount was ordered to be paid by the appellants to the complainant respondent. In this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that if train was stopped due to derailment and it reached destination with some delay, in such a case, deficiency on the part of Railway Administration could not be assessed. Hence, the findings of the learned District Forum assessing deficiency on the part of the appellants and awarding compensation to the complainant respondent are wholly erroneous and illegal one and, thus, the same cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent complainant has supported the impugned order.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant and gone through the entire materials available on record. In our considered opinion, the findings of the learned District Forum could not be sustained because there is a specific mention in the Railway General that Railways do not guarantee the arrival or departure of trains at the times specified in the time tables.

THE Hon''ble National Commission in Union of India & Anr. v. Gummadi Narasimh & Anr., II (1993) CPJ 214 (NC), has held that Railways do not guarantee timely running of train and in such case, no deficiency in service on the part of Railways could be attributed. For the reasons stated above, the findings of the learned District Forum assessing deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and awarding compensation to the complainant respondent cannot be sustained as they suffer from basic infirmity, illegality and perversity and, thus, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of the learned District Forum is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.10.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Churu is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant respondent before the District Forum stands dismissed. Appeal allowed.