KESHO DASS vs NORTHERN RAILWAY

PARTURBED by the judgment of the District Forum, Sangrur dated November 18, 1 996 vide which his complaint has been dismissed, the complainant has filed the present appeal before this Commission.

FACTS in brief, relevant, significant and sufficient are to be noticed first. It has been stated in the complaint that on 11.3.1995 complainant purchased one B.P.T. Ticket No. 695339 for Rs. 552/- (Rupees five hundred and fifty two only) from Dhuri Railway Station for journey from Dhuri to Bangalore for himself and his wife-Smt. Pukhraj Rani and at the Railway Station, Dhuri reservation for two berths in sleeper class was applied for on 11.3.1995 itself and the reservation sought was from New Delhi to Manmad in Karnataka Express-2628 for 22.3.1995 and Manmad to Bangalore City in the same train- 2628 for 25.3.1995. On the repeated enquiries being made from Railway Station, Dhuri he was told that message/requisition has been sent to Delhi and the complainant would get berths confirmed at Delhi. He accompanied by his wife and grand son for whom the ticket was purchased later boarded the Intercity Express-4590 at 6.50 a.m. on 22.3.1995 and reached at New Delhi. At reaching there the tickets were presented at New Delhi Computer Centre (IRCA Building) for getting the reservation. The reservation staff searched and verified their record and found that no message/requisition has been received from Dhuri Railway Station and a note to that effect was given on the back of the ticket by the reservation staff at New Delhi ''message not received.'' Because no current reservation was available, they have no option except to deposit ticket for refund and to come back to Dhuri. They boarded 2005 Shatabadi Express at 1715 hours on 22.3.1995 holding three tickets and at Ambala they got the next available train at 2330 hours (4587-Kalka-Jodhpur Train) and reached back Dhuri at 2.20 a.m. on 23.3.1995. The complainant lodged complaints dated 22.2.1995 (Annexure C-5), 16.3.1995 (Annexure C-6), 21.3.1995 (Annexure C-7) and 25.3.1995 (Annexure C-8).

On the notice being served all the opposite parties i.e. Northern Railway through its General Manager, Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Cantt. and Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Dhuri, filed one joint written statement inter-alia stating that it is admitted that the complainant on 11.3.1995 purchased one ''Blank paper'' ticket for journey from Dhuri to Bangalore and applied for reservation in sleeper class for reservation of the berths from New Delhi to Manmad in Karnataka Express-2628 for 22.3.1995, and from Manmad to Bangalore City in the same train for 25.3.1995. It was further stated in the written statement that on 11.3.1995 respondent No. 3, i.e. Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Dhuri sent a securing memo to computer reservation office, Delhi for the reservation of required berth, but no reply from that office was received at Dhuri station and on 17.3.1995 (wrongly stated in the written statement as 17.3.1996) sent a reminder to the booking office at Delhi and on 25.3.1995 respondent No. 3 received a reply of reminder dated J7.3.1995 at Dhuri to the effect that no room was available in Karnataka Express from Delhi to Manmad and the complainant was placed in the waiting list at serial No. 124 and 125. It was denied that respondent No. 3 had not sent any massage to the reservation staff at New Delhi. It was further stated that after holding enquiry, Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Cantt. found that securing memo from Dhuri was already sent to Delhi Reservation Office.

ON opportunity being given by the District Forum the complainant Kesho Dass filed his own affidavit and documents Annexure C-l to C-14. The respondents did not file any affidavit and rest contented with the filing of documents Annexure R-l to R-4. After affording opportunity of being heard, the learned District Forum passed the order under challenge holding that Railway Station Master, Dhuri had sent the requisition for reservation and reply was that they were placed on the waiting list. The complainant took the journey with a view that he would get reservation as claimed by him and when he did not get reservation at Delhi, he was to come back to Dhuri. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant and have perused the record of the District Forum. It has been categorically stated in para 3 of the complaint that the complainant accompanied by his wife and grand son boarded the Intercity Express-4590 at 6.50 a.m. on 22.3.1995 with full luggage and reached New Delhi. The tickets were presented at New Delhi Computer (IRCA building) for reservation status. The reservation staff searched and verified their record and found that no message/requisition had been received from Dhuri Station, which was to be sent by the respondent No. 3 and his concerned staff and a note to that effect was given on the back of the ticket by Reservation Staff at New Delhi ''Message not Receive.'' The averment made in the complaint had not been denied in the written version filed by the opposite parties before the District Forum. The averment made in para 3 of the complaint has been supported by the affidavit of the complainant. For the reasons best known to the Railways, no affidavit of any of the officer of the Department has been filed. It leaves no manner of doubt that the averment made in the complaint and in the affidavit remained unrebutted and in legal parlance it stands admitted. It cannot be denied that the Railway service from Dhuri to Delhi is an integrated service.

AS stated above, it has been stated in the written statement that the complaint dated 21.3.1995 was enquired by Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Cantt. who found that securing memo from Dhuri was already sent to the Delhi Reservation Office. For the reasons best known to the Department, the enquiry file or the report, if any of the said Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Cantt. was not produced and for that matter adverse influence (sic inference) is to be drawn against the opposite parties. The crux of the matter is the receipt of the message at Delhi and the date of the reservation applied by the complainant at Delhi Station. Only on the stand of the respondent No. 3 that the securing memo was sent from Dhuri to Delhi Reservation Office, a clean chit cannot be given to the opposite parties. In view of the unrebutted allegation made in the complaint and the affidavit, as stated above, there is no other option except to hold that the reservation message was either not received at Delhi Reservation Office or it was not attended. For any eventuality the Railways are liable and hence Railway Department has not only rendered deficient service to the complainant passenger, but has also acted negligently in not dealing with the reservation applied for. There is no gain-saying that the reservation is part and parcel of the Railway service. Judicial notice of the fact can be taken that it is impossible to travel from Dhuri to Bangalore without reservation and more so when the complainant is a senior citizen and he alongwith his family was proceeding for pilgrimage for "His Holiness Bhagwan Sri Satya SaiBaba."

EVEN the case put up by the respondent No. 3 in written statement makes an interesting reading. It has been stated in the written statement that securing memo to the Computer Reservation Office, Delhi as sent from Dhuri on 11.3.1995 and it has been admitted that Dhuri office did not receive the reply and on 17.3.1995 wrongly stated in the written statement as 17.3.1996) reminder was sent to the Booking Office, Delhi and in pursuance of the reminder, reply was received at Dhuri on 25.3.1995 that the complainants are in the waiting list. The journey is to start from Delhi on 22.3.1995. The receipt of the intimation at Dhuri Railway Station on 25.3.1995 itself categorically proves the rendering of deficient service to the complainant on the part of the respondents.

FOR the reasons recorded above, we hold that the opposite parties have rendered deficient service to their complainant and have negligently dealt with him and his family. It has been stated in the complaint supported by affidavit that the purpose of their visit to have Darshan of Bhagwan Sri Satya Sai Baba remained unfulfilled and that cannot be quantified in the terms of money. However, it has been stated that complainant be granted nominal damages to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- In this, great spiritual country one cannot loose sight of the importance attached to the pilgrimage by the passengers and has rightly been stated by the complainant that the loss of pilgrimage cannot be quantified in the terms of the money. But at the same time this Commission cannot be oblivious to the patent fact that the complainant accompanied by his family has devoted two days in their journey from Dhuri to Delhi and return and on that account they have suffered great mental loss and agony and inconvenience and harassment for which they are to be compensated. In addition to this they have lost some of the fare amount in getting the refund of the same from the Railway Department. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by awarding a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant inclusive of the cost of litigation. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum, Sangrur is set aside and the complaint filed before the District Forum is allowed in the terms indicated above. The opposite parties are directed to pay the awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order. Appeal allowed.