Justice K.C. Bhargava, President- SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY vs CHALUMURU VENKATESWARA RAO

THIS appeal has been preferred by the Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway and Chief Commercial Manager/ Superintendent (opposite parties) against the order of the District Forum in C.C. No. 418/1993 dated 3.9.1998. Their contention is that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the dispute regarding refunding the fare for the journey not undertaken comes under the purview of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Therefore, the District. Forum erred in directing the appellants to pay to the complainant (respondent in the appeal) a sum of Rs. 7,000/- with costs of Rs. 1,000/- within two months from the date of order and in case the opposite parties failed to pay the same, the complainant was entitled to interest at 15% settled and within, three months he could expect the refund. He wanted everything to be amicably settled therefore, he took the trouble of going to Calcutta personally. As he could not get any refund even after that he approached District Forum and requested that opposite party should pay a damage of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs.

THE appellants/opposite parties in their counter accepted that the respondent had booked 7 First Class tickets by train No. 8518 Link Express from Visakhapatnam to New Delhi on 26.5.1993. Due to administrative reasons, the First Class compartment could not be attached that day. THEy stated that while railways endeavor to provide reserved accommodation by way of seat, berth or carriage in accordance with rules and conditions published in ''Coaching Tariff, they could not guarantee reserved accommodation by any particular train and would admit no claim for compensation, loss or extra expenses due to such accommodation not being provided or reserved carriage not being attached to a particular train as per Rule on page 136 of the S.E. Railway Time Table No. 70 in force from 1.7.1993 and Time Table No. 69 in force from 1.7.1992. THEy asserted that announcement was made regarding the cancellation of bogie on that day that alternative arrangement would be made in the Second Class sleeper coach if the passengers were willing to travel. THE Station Master was not authorised to refund fares and there was a counter No. 2 provided for granting such refunds at the platform itself which worked for 24 hours even on that day. Three refunds were granted on tickets to Jullandar City since no First Class bogie was attached to train No. 8518. It was not true that the clerk refused to refund the amount as alleged by the respondent. THEy therefore, alleged that the complainant did not approach the right counter at the Visakhapatnam Railway Station for the refund of the tickets fare. For the refund of the railway ticket fare the procedure had to be followed as per the Railway Time Table. Rule 10 of the Cancellation of Tickets and Refund of Fare Rules, 1993 was as follows : "When a Railway Administration is not able to provide accommodation for any reason whatsoever passengers holding reserved tickets no cancellation charges is payable and refund of fare and reservation shall be granted : Provided that such tickets are surrendered for refund within 3 hours from the actual departure of train."

Since he did not follow this procedure, the second alternative was to approach appellant No. 2 at Calcutta and if he could not get there also, he had to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal. But the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum at Visakhapatnam which according to them had no jurisdiction. THE complainant therefore, was not entitled to claim any damages/compensation in terms of Rule 4 of the Time Table. Since Union of India was not made a party, the complaint, was not maintainable. We have, therefore, to see whether there was any deficiency in service by the appellants and if so, what should be the amount of compensation to be paid to the respondent.

From the whole account, we find that the respondent had to undergo lot of harassment and hardship due to sudden cancellation of First Class compartment in the hot month of May. The reservation which he had made much earlier was of no use and nobody could give him correct information at Visakhapatnam Railway Station. The Additional Station Master could have directed him to the counter provided on the platform for refund of the amount instead of asking him to claim it next morning, and even on the next day he could travel only by Second Class sleeper from Visakhapatnam to New Delhi via Nagpur in the month of May which must have caused lot of discomfort to the whole family.

FROM the records, we find that the complainant filed his affidavit alongwith xerox copies of Guard''s Certificate dated 26/27.5.1993 refund certificate for 7 tickets dated 27.5.1993, railway ticket and entire correspondence with the appellants. On the other hand the appellants only filed their counter and no material or affidavits before the District Forum to substantiate their case. In their petition, the appellants mentioned that the amount was finally refunded. But when the complaint was filed on 4.7.1994 even after one year the complainant/ respondent had not received the money. He had availed Leave Travel Concession for First Class and because he had travelled by Second Class due to the cancellation of 1st Class compartment, he had to refund the amount to his employer. We, therefore, find that there was a clear deficiency in service by the opposite party and do not find any merit in this appeal. Award of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per passenger on the facts of the present case is rather conservative. The appeal, in the result, is dismissed with costs. The costs shall be Rs. 1,000/- and shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 6 weeks from today. Appeal dismissed.