MAHAPRABHANDAK, CENTRAL RAILWAY vs RISHIB KUMAR JAIN

THIS is an appeal by opposite party against the order dated 7.7.1995 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sagar in their Case No. 22/95, wherein the District Forum has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainants compensation for mental and physical torture for not providing reserved accommodation in three-tier second class coach in Shipra Express on 6.10.1994 for journey from Sagar to Parshwanath whereas on 23.8.1994 they had been issued tickets with confirmed reservation of eight berths No. 9 to 16 in S/3 coach of the said train.

HEARD the arguments of both the parties and perused the records of the case. The agruments of the appellant are as under : (i) Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to hear a complaint for refund of fare as barred by Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal. (ii) That it is published in Railway Time Table and Coaching Tariff that Railway Administration do not guarantee reserved accommodation and will not admit any claim for compensation for such accommodation not being provided. (iii) That since S/3 coach was not attached in the train, the complainants were provided three berths in S/3 coach and they did not face any inconvenience and hence question of awarding compensation does not arise.

Had it been a simple case of refund of fare jurisdiction of Consumer Forum would have been barred as argued. But it is not simply a case of refund. It is a case of inconvenience caused to eight persons for non-availability of reserved berths, apart from refund of fare. Passengers travelling by Railway trains on payment of the stipulated fare charged for the ticket are "consumers" and the facility of transportation by Rail, provided by the Railway Administration is a "service" rendered for consideration as defined under the Act I (1991) CPJ 10 (NC), "Deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality, nature and manner of performance.

RAILWAY Administration issues two types of 2nd class tickets. One is for unreserved accommodation, the other is IInd Class Sleeper accommodation with confirmed reservation of berths or seats. Tickets for confirmed berths are issued well-in-advance and charges for the same are much higher than for unreserved accommodation. In almost 99.09% cases, passengers with confirmed reservation get berths or seats, as reserved. It is only in .01% cases, where passengers with confirmed reservation fail to get the same. As such, public at large remains assured of comfortable journey in a reserved compartment. It is usually due to laxity of some RAILWAY employee or employees at some stage, that such lapses occur. Unless there are unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of mankind, such lapse should not occur. Non-attachment of a reserved coach puts 144 persons (in to and fro journey of the train) to inconvenience, though hardly a few approach appropriate Forums for redressal of their grievance. As such it is not only a question of giving compensation to those who approach Public Grievances Redressal Forum. The grant of compensation to the complainant serves as a deterrant for the oppositeS party to be vigilant in future. RAILWAY Administration cannot get away from its responsibility by saying simply that it is published in RAILWAY Time Table that RAILWAY Administration does not guarantee reserved accommodation or will not admit claim for compensation. When a bona fide traveller is a "consumer". RAILWAY Administration is providing "services" of reserved accommodation for an extra "consideration" other than normal second class fare, it cannot get away with its responsibility for "deficiency in service" of not providing reserved accommodation. The deficiency of not attaching coach could have been condoned had the Railway Administration explained the unavoidable circumstances under which coach was not attached. But they have not done so. Their reply is vague and is based on conjectures and not on facts after due enquiry. Because the reply is. "xxx xxx xxx"

THE train by which the complainants travelled in the morning of 6.10.1994 to which this coach attached, must have started from Calcutta for its journey to Indore on 3.10.1994 afternoon at the latest. Railway has got its own telephone and telegraph lines and was not short of communication system and Railway Administration was aware of this situation two and a half days ahead. Had these passengers having reserved tickets been made aware of non-availability of reserved accommodation in advance by announcement at Railway platform and by publication at notice board most of them would have either made some alternative arrangements or would have postponed their departure instead of having suffered mental and physical torture of sitting in a crowded unreserved compartment for complete 20 hours. It is very difficult to take a decision in less than 5-10 minutes, whether to undertake journey or not, after the arrival of train and usually the decision is to undertake having come prepared to the Railway Station. Having no alternative, the passengers are literally forced to undertake journey. Thus, the Railway Administration is definitely liable for "deficiency" on their part. Coming to third argument that the complainants were provided three berths in S/4 coach, the appellants have not been able to establish this contention and nothing also has been said in appeal memo as to how the finding of the District Forum in para 6 of their order was wrong. As such this argument is also of no avail. Hence, we find no reason. in interfere with the order of the District Forum and dismiss mis appeal. Similary, the counter appeal of the respondents for enhancement of compensation is also dismissed as we do not find any justification to enhance the same. We however, direct the appellants to pay to the respondents Rs. 500/- as cost of this appeal. Appeal dismissed with costs.