GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERNR AILWAYS vs J.F.ALBERT FERNANDO

THE General Manager, Southern Railways, the opposite Party before the District Forum has preferred this appeal against the order of the District Forum, Madras on O.P. 9/90 dated 17.12.90.

THE complainant-respondent reserved 42 seats for his party to attend the marriage of his son at Bangalore a month earlier for journey from Madras to Bangalore by Brindavan Express on 23.10.88 in coach D.C.8. But they found that all these 42 seats in that coach were occupied by other passengers holding earlier reservation tickets. THE Complainant''s party had therefore travel by standing in passages and corridors with much inconvenience. It is the further case of the complaint that his son and daughter-in-law were holding two reserved tickets for travel from Madurai to Madras on 17.4.90 by Pearl City Express in Coach No. S 7. THEse seats were also found filled up. THEy had therefore to travel with inconvenience. Hence the claim for compensation at Rs. 1,000/- per ticket. THE complainant has also filed an affidavit to that effect. The Railway administration admitted the allegations of erroneous allotment of seats, but pleaded that alternate accommodations were provided to them and there was no inconvenience. The provisions of the Indian Railways Act and the rules are pressed into service to defeat the claim for compensation.

The District Forum accepted the contentions of the respondent and awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 100/- per ticket and ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 4,400/- for the 44 tickets involved in this case. Hence this appeal.

IT is not disputed and cannot be disputed that the 42 tickets reserved for the complainant''s party in the Brindavan Express in Coach D.C.8 on 23.10.88 and the two tickets reserved for the complainant''s son and daughter in Pearl City Express on 17.10.90 in Coach No. S-7 have been erroneously allotted to others. These defaults are undoubtedly due to the gross negligence of the Railway booking and reservation staff for which the appellant must bear vicarious responsibility. The question is whether this passenger have been given suitable alternate accommodation and they had no cause for grievance. The District Forum has accepted the case of the complainant supported by his affidavit that in both cases no suitable alternate seats had been provided and that these unfortunate passengers had to travel with great inconvenience and the case of the appellant is an after-thought. We have gone through all the records and we have no reason to differ from the conclusions of the District Forum.

THE provisions of Sec. 67 of the Railways Act and Rules 213(8) and 306 of Tariff Rules deal with cases of want of accommodate for unforeseen reasons, while in the cases on hand, the hardship experienced by these reserved passenger is due to the gross negligence of the Railway staff, as already pointed out. THE appellant Railways cannot take umbrage under these provisions and escape responsibility. No other point is urged before us. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed but without costs. Time for payment is 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Appeal dismissed. _____________