K.DILLI BABU vs General Manager, Southern Railway

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19th day of November, 1996 in O.P. No. 502/95 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North).

THE appellant is the complainant while the respondents are the opposite parties. The succinct facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

The complainant reserved 3 tickets at second opposite party ticket counter at Shimoga Railway Station on 2.10.1995 at 10.30 a.m. for travelling from Shimoga to Bangalore in Train No. 284A and from Bangalore to Madras in Train No. 6008 (Bangalore-Madras Mail). The reservation of tickets was made by the complainant for himself, for his wife Hamsaveni and for his mother-in-law, Roopavathi. The mother-in-law was accompanying them since they brought one month old baby along with them.

THE tickets were for the journey on 5.10.1995. He paid the necessary and requisite charges for travelling from Shimoga to Madras quantified in a sum of Rs. 306/- and he paid the berths charges of Rs. 45/- from Shimoga to Bangalore in the Trian No. 284 A in Coach No. S4, all totalling to Rs. 351/-. Necessary and requisite berths were allotted in S4 Coach in the said Train. When he along with his family members went to Shimoga Railway Station on 5-10.1995 and they as a matter of fact occupied the berths in S4 Coach. They were, however, ejected out of the train by the Travelling Ticket Examiner saying that those berths were allotted to some other passengers. Consequently, the complainant and his family members were to necessarily wait in the platform for unduly long for catching the other train. This act on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant would say, would amount to deficiency in service.

ALLEGING the factors as above, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite parties in pith and substance would contend that though the complainant and his family members were issued tickets along with berths in the train in question, yet somehow or other, due to inadvertence on the part of the Booking Clerk, their names were omitted in the chart and consequently the Travelling Ticket Examiner had to eject them out and allot the seats to other persons who were also holding the tickets for occupying the berths allotted to the complainant and his family members. What they would further contend is that the complainant and his family members were offered alternate accommodation and they refused to accept the alternate accommodation offered and such being the case it cannot at all be stated that there was any deficiency in service on their part. The complaint as such is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, however, recorded a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs. 350/-.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the appellant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. G.S. Sivakumar.

ON service of process, the respondents/ opposite parties also entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsel Mr. V.S.R. Hanu Babu Koka. When the matter came up for hearing before us today, both learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant as well as the respondents/opposite parties were called absent and no representation was made on their behalf. The fact that both learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents were absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits, of course, on perusal of the materials places on record and that is exactly what we have done in this case.

Even, at the outset we may point out that the Forum below did not at all sift, scan and analyse the materials placed on record in the proper perspective in order to give a legal fitment and that perhaps was the reason for the Forum below to have rendered an erroneous finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties Railways. The opposite parties Railways made a candid admission in their version that the complainant and his family members were issued tickets allotting berths in the train in question for their travel from Shimoga to Bangalore. Despite issuing tickets and allotting berths to the complainant and his family members, they would say that their names were omitted to be included in the chart to be given to the Travelling Ticket Examiner by the mistake committed by the booking clerk. The factum of committing of a mistake by the booking clerk in not including the names of the complainant and his family members in the chart itself would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties Railways. It is rather a pity that the complainant and his family members along with one month old baby in their hands were forced to wait in Shimoga Railway Station by reason of the callous and cavalier negligence committed by the booking clerk in not including their names in the reservation chart to be given to the Travelling Ticket Examiner. Of course, in the counter so filed, it has been stated that the Travelling Ticket Examiner offered alternate accommodation and the complainant and his family members refused to accept the same. Though such a stand had been taken in their counter, no material worth the name had been placed on record to point out that the opposite parties were in a position to allot alternate accommodation to the complainant and his family members in the very same train. In such circumstances, the offers so made by the opposite parties cannot be any one other than an offer for offer sake and nothing further. The act of the opposite parties in ejecting out the complainant and his family members from S4 coach of the train in question despite the fact that they are having confirmed tickets along with berths would definitely tantamount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In this view of the matter, the finding as recorded by the Forum below that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties cannot at all be stated to be sustainable in law on the facts and in the circumstances.

THE question that arises for consideration at this juncture is what is the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant for the mental agony and anguish suffered by him and his family members as they were left lurch in the Railway Station on the day in question. It is not as if the complainant along with the members of his family alone were to travel in the train on the day in question. Pertinent it is to take note at this juncture that the complainant and his family members were scheduled to travel in the train along with the one-month-old ailing baby in their arms. THE moment they were ejected out of the train, they were to necessarily wait in the platform along with the one-month-old ailing baby in their arms. Definitely the complainant and his family members placed in such a situation would have undergone an agonising situation, torture and what not by their stay in the Railway Platform for unduly long for catching the next train. For such mental agony and anguish, the complainant and his family members ought to be adequately compensated. Award of compensation, of course, is a very onerous and difficult job. It is very difficult to quantify the amount of compensation payable to the complainant and his family members placed in such a situation in a precise amount. THEre is always some sort of speculation in awarding compensation amount and such aspect of the matter cannot at all be avoided in granting compensation. We, however, feel that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a compensation quantified in a sum of Rs. 5,000/ if granted to the complainant and his family members for the mental agony and anguish they have suffered for their unduly long wait in the Railway Station, it would not be besides justice, we accordingly do so. THE appeal as such deserves to be allowed. In fine, the appeal is allowed; the order of the Forum below is set aside; the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and anguish suffered by him and his other family members. This amount of compensation is required to be paid by the respondents/opposite parties within a month from the date of this order or otherwise the amount of the award shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realisation. We also make it clear that the order of ours as above is required to be complied with by the respondents/ opposite parties within a month from the date of receipt of our order or otherwise the appellant/ complainant will be at liberty to invoke the provisions under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, "the Act"). Appeal allowed.