NORTHERN RAILWAY vs Dau Dayal Chaturvedi

CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in complaint case No. C-309/96. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by a certain Dau Dayal Chaturvedi, power of attorney holder of Sri Guru Sewanandji @ Swami Karshni Guru Sewanand of Karshini Aashram, Raman Reti, Mathura alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Northern Railway Administration and has directed the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 2,46,308 charged in excess from the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of payment till 2.12.1997 when the offer was declined by the complainant, besides a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for deficiency in service on account of which the complainant and other passengers were put to great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony during their train journey and further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as litigation expenses.

BRIEFLY, the facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are that the above-named complainant had reserved a special train on 2.6.1994 for journey to various religious places and deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000 for the said purpose on 11.7.1994. After finalizing the details of places to be visited and on receipt of the requisite fare, the train was made available on 16.9.1994. However, the complainant and other passengers/pilgrims accompanying him found that the special train consisting of different types of bogies; the train had no back-up/alternative arrangement for lighting in case of failure of regular lighting system and no water facilities as a result of which the journey became troublesome and distressful for the passengers. The train was delayed for 2 hours and 40 minutes at Ayodhya Station due to non-availability of locomotive/engine and it was detained for several hours at various other stations. Lastly, it was alleged that one old lady, Smt. Satyawati Chadha who was a passenger in the train un-boarded the bogie at some station in order to fetch water and met with a fatal accident and died on the spot when the train started. It was also alleged that the Railway Authorities had charged fare in excess of the chargeable fare to the extent of Rs. 2,07,487. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party Railway Administration and it was stated that the Railway Administration had offered to refund a sum of Rs. 2,46,308 vide their letter of November, 1997 but the complainant declined to accept the same. It was, however, denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration or its employees or that the old lady had died on account of any negligence on the part of the Northern Railway or its employees. The State Commission, going by the respective pleas, evidence and the material produced on record, partly allowed the complaint in the above manner.

WE have heard Mr. S.C. Rajpal, learned Counsel for the appellant Railway Administration but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent as nobody represented the respondent at the time of hearing of the appeal despite due notice on the above-named complainant on whose behalf the complaint was initially filed in the State Commission. Mr. Rajpal, learned Counsel for the appellant would assail the finding and the impugned order of the State Commission primarily on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable before the State Commission as a Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint like the present one and grant relief which the State Commission has granted in the present case. The basis of his contention is that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum or even a Civil Court or Tribunal to entertain the proceedings for grant of such a relief is expressly barred by the provisions of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") because any claim in respect of compensation can be filed only before the Railway Claims Tribunal established under the said Act by virtue of the jurisdiction, power and authority vested in it under Section 13 of the Act. For the facility of reference, we would like to extract the provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the said Act as under : 13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal-(l) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act- (a) relating to the responsibility of the Railway Administrations as carriers under Chapter-VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for- (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a Railway Administration for carriage by railway; (ii) compensation payable under Section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and (b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a Railway Administration to be carried by railway. [(1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Section 12A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any Civil Court in respect of claim for compensation now payable by the Railway Administration under Section 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder]. (2) The provisions of the [Railways Act 1989 (24 of 1989)1 and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act. 15. Bar of jurisdiction-On and from the appointed day no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-sessions (1) and (1A) of Section 13.

A bare reading of the above provisions of the Act would leave no doubt that at least the claim for refund of fare or excess fare, etc., could be made only before the Railway Claims Tribunal and not before any other Court or Forum like the Consumer Forum. In any case, it is shown on record that even before filing of complaint, the Railway Administration, having realized that some excess fare had been charged, had offered to pay a sum of Rs. 2,46,308 to the respondent but unfortunately the respondent/complainant, for reasons not easy to understand, had declined the same. In any case, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Railway Administration that part of the said amount was later paid to the respondent.

INSOFAR as the other deficiencies in service, viz, lack of light and water facilities in the special train and delay in departure at several stations, etc., are concerned, we may observe that the State Commission or for that matter any Consumer Forum has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in regard to such a matter. However, the important question in the present case is whether the complainant had been able to establish such deficiencies in service on the part of the Railway Administration. Our answer is in negative because the complainant had failed to lead any cogent evidence in order to show that one or more of these deficiencies were committed by the Railway Administration or its employees. Despite this position, the State Commission recorded the finding of deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration merely because in the reckoning of the State Commission, the Railway Administration failed to reply to any of the letters/notices issued by the complainant alleging such deficiencies. The silence on the part of the Railway Administration could not be taken as an admission of deficiency in service as has been considered by the State Commission. Any person alleging a fact must establish the same by leading cogent evidence and such a fact cannot be deemed to have been established merely on the presumption that the certain letters of the complainants were not replied to by the Railway Administration, more particularly so when the Railway Administration had denied any such deficiency in service by filing the written version to the complaint of the complainant. In our view, the finding of the State Commission holding the Railway Administration deficient in service is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the material placed on record and is not legally sustainable.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the State Commission is hereby set aside. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Railway Administration states at bar that under the directions of this Commission vide order dated 17.3.2005, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 had already been paid to the respondent, besides a sum of Rs. 93,000 which was already paid to the respondent. The payment of these amounts can be treated as the full discharge of the liability of the Railway Administration in regard to the payment of excess fare. The First Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.