NORTHERN RAILWAYS STATION SUPERINTENDENT vs NISCHAL GUPTA

THIS is an appeal filed against the order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II] in Complaint Case No. 562 of 1999, Nischal Gupta, s/o Dr. H.C. Gupta, r/o H. No. 645, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh against Northern Railway, Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Chandigarh, The General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi and Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi vide which the District Forum-II has held the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and awarded a consolidated damage of Rs. 11,000/- including costs of the case to the complainant. Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow campus, may briefly be stated as under.

THE complainant, travelled by train No. 2005 Shatabdi Express from New Delhi to Chandigarh on 5th June, 1999. THE said train arived at Chandigarh belatedly and there was delay of about 4 hours from the scheduled time of arrival of the train at Chandigarh Railway Station. THE scheduled time of arrival of 2005 Shatabdi train at the railway station is alleged to be 8.17 p.m. THE train finally arrived at about 12.15 a.m. It was alleged that the complainant, Sh. Nischal Gupta was travelling by the said Shatabdi train and his old parents had come to railway station to receive him and they were stranded there upto 12.15 a.m. THEre was no news or announcement made at the railway station regarding the late arrival of the train. Apart from it, it was contended that except for the initial catering service of train, the complainant was not served with snacks or other eatables during the long hours consumed by the journey. THE complainant described deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and alleged that it resulted in undue harassment, physical discomfort and mental torture to him as well as to his old parents and claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. The case was contested by opposite parties, who filed written statement through the Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala. It was alleged in the written statement that the delay in the running of the train aforesaid was not on account of any deficient service, but due to unforeseen circumstances because a goods train had derailed near Karnal and the entire traffic of the route was diverted on the single line. It was stated that repeated announcements were given on the public address system about the late running of the train and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

The complainant filed copy of the ticket and his affidavit as well as affidavit of his father Dr. H.C. Gupta. The opposite parties on the other hand, filed affidavit of Sh. M.M. Singh, Divisional Commercial Manager, Ambala and another affidavit of Sh. Surya Kant Sharma, Announcer at New Delhi Railway Station. The District Forum-II while considering the rival contentions and the material placed on record by both the parties held in para 6 of its order as under : "6. Apart from that the other grievance raised by the complainant is that the railways did not act in a transparent manner and no announcement was made intimating the passengers and their relatives about the fact. However, this assertion is refuted on behalf of the opposite party and that is sought to be supported by the two affidavits placed on the record by the opposite party. The complainant was to reach Chandigarh, so far the purposes of this case the affidavit of the announcer travelling in the train and the one posted on the Railway Station, Chandigarh were the real persons who could throw light on the point in issue. None of them has come forward to give affidavit in support of the version of the opposite party. The affidavits given by one officer posted at Ambala and another at New Delhi Railway Station would not fill the gap. They can at best speak of the happenings at Railway Station, Ambala and Railway Station, New Delhi. They cannot vouch-safe about the announcements having been made in the running train and at the Railway Station, Chandigarh. Importantly, the father of the complainant was waiting for his son at Railway Station, Chandigarh and the opposite party was under an obligation to examine the announcer at Railway Station, Chandigarh to prove that the said announcement was made intimating the late arrival of the train and the time by which the train was late. In the absence of these deponents, the explanation given by the opposite party to meet the case of the complainant remains unsubstantiated."

As mentioned above, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum-II and a consolidated damages of Rs. 11,000/- were awarded including the costs of the case to the complainant.

THE order of the District Forum-II has been challenged by the opposite parties, who have filed this appeal. THE record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum-II. Notice was sent to the respondent/complainant. Sh. Nischal Gupta, who was duly served with the registered A.D. notice. However, none put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/complainant. We have heard Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for the appellants and have carefully perused the order under appeal and the record of the complaint case.

THE learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the photo copy of the newspaper Tribune published on June 6, 1999 and the same contained in news item under the head ''Shatabdi Delayed''. It reads as under : "Shatabdi delayed Tribune News Service Chandigarh, June 5 - THE Delhi-Chandigarh Shatabdi train ran about four hours behind schedule today. According to official sources, the train, the arrival time of which at the local railway station is 8.17 p.m., left Ambala City for Chandigarh at 11.12 p.m. It normally covers the distance between Ambala and Chandigarh in about 40 minutes. THE train got delayed on account of derailment of a goods train at Wajidan Jattan near Karnal at about 4 a.m. today which resulted in the blockage of rail traffic for about eight hours. THE traffic was, however, resumed on one line following the clearance of the blockade in the after noon. Railway officials at Ambala said the clearance operation was still going on."

Sh. M.M. Singh, Divisional Commercial Manager, Ambala in his affidavit deposed in para 3 of the affidavit, inter alia, as under : "3. ...This is for the kind attention of this Hon''ble Court that the train which leaves Chandigarh at 12.20 hours, again starts from New Delhi to Chandigarh at 17.15 hrs. This is in routine but on the fateful day the said train reached New Delhi at 17.55 hrs. THE said train (Shatabdi Express) reached late because of derailment of a goods train near Karnal and the single line on the said route was put in operation and the entire traffic was put on single track. THE news item appeared in the Tribune describing the incident. It is absolutely wrong that there was no announcement of the delay rather the repeated announcements were made on a public address system and on the electronic display board about the late departure. THE above said train i.e. 2012 since reached New Delhi late so, for its back journey it also got late because of the maintenance etc."

In para 5 it was averred, inter alia as under : "5. ...Every single information was supplied to the passengers as well as information was being repeated during the journey and the cause thereof was being explained. It is for the pointed attention of this Hon''ble Court that on the fateful day the goods train got derailed near Karnal and the entire traffic was diverted on a single track and one can understand to avoid any kind of untoward incident the trains which were carrying thousands of passengers were ordered to move in a very safely manner. THE cause of stopping the train was very simple that to allow the train starting from New Delhi in a phase manner. THE repeated announcements were being made in the train itself."

In para 6, reply was given in respect of the providing snacks tea/coffee and it was deposed, inter alia, as under : "6. ...As per routine snacks tea/coffee and mineral water etc. were distributed by the catering staff. THE dinner cannot be provided due to non-availability of dinning/kitchen car with the train. However, the additional tea/coffee/snacks were provided to all passengers without any extra charge. THE delay in reaching at Chandigarh was totally due to unforeseen circumstances having been arisen and for reaching early the lives of thousands of passengers cannot be put at stake."

Sh. Surya Kant Sharma, Announcer, New Delhi Railway Station, deposed in paras (ii) and (iii) of his affidavit as under : "(ii) That the deponent was on duty at that point of time and repeated announcements which are duly recorded in our records were being made at Railway Station regarding the late running of trains. (iii) That the deponent was repeatedly announcing the late departure of the Shatabdi Express Delhi for its backward journey to Kalka."

The complainant, Nischal Gupta in his affidavit, deposed in paras 3 to 5 of his affiavit as under : "3. That on 5.6.1999 the deponent reached New Delhi Railway Station at 5 p.m., he found that the train was not available at the railway station for departure. On enquiry from the counter, it was revealed that the said train would arrive late and would depart from New Delhi Railway Station by 6.15 p.m. but actually the said train departed from New Delhi railway Station at about 7.20 p.m. without any prior announcement of expected delay. 4. That as the train was expected to arrive at Chandigarh Railway Station at 8.17 p.m. so parents of the deponent who are senior citizens being more than 65 years of age remained stranded there upto 12.15 p.m. as there was no proper information/announcement at the railway station about the late arrival of the train by the Railway Authorities and also the probable time of delay. 5. That there was no prior information of the expected delay and the train departed after the delay of 2.05 hours. Even during the train journey, several unscheduled stoppage occurred and no announcement was made as to why the train was stopping after every few minutes on unannounced stoppages."

He deposed about the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties as under : "6. That had the opposite party made the announcement of probable time of delay in the arrival of the train, the parents of the deponent would not have stayed on for that long at the railway station. It is wrongly alleged by the opposite parties that they had made the announcements of the delay in the arrival of the train."

Regarding the serving of snacks, he alleged in para 7 as under : "7. That after few minutes of train''s departure, the snacks were served and no other proper arrangements were made for serving food or snacks to the deponent and other passengers during the long hours of delay in the arrival of the train on its destination. The deponent was virtually made to starve."

Dr. H.C. Gupta, father of the complainant has deposed in his affidavit about his going to railway station of Chandigarh on 5th June, 1996 along with his wife at about 8.00 p.m. to receive their son, the complainant, Nischal Gupta, who was travelling by Kalka Shatabdi Train No. 2005. The train was expected to arrive at Chandigarh Railway Station at 8.17 p.m. but it reached Chandigarh Railway Station about 00.15 a.m. He deposed in para 4 of his affidavit, inter alia, as under : "4. That there was no proper information/announcement at the Railway Station, Chandigarh about the probable time of late arrival of the train by the railway authorities. For this reason the deponent and his wife remained stranded at Railway Station, Chandigarh upto 12.15 p.m...."

Upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, we find that the complainant has not specifically denied that the Shatabdi Express train was running late on 5.6. 1996 due to the accident of the goods train near Karnal. On the other hand, the Divisional Commercial Manager, Ambala, Sh. M.M. Singh has specifically and categorically stated about late running of the train due to the accident of the goods train which had occurred on that very day around 4 a.m. and the entire rail traffic was diverted on single route. Sh. Surya Kant Sharma, Announcer, New Delhi made repeated announcements of the late running of the train. The snacks were served to the complainant and other passengers as has been deposed to in the affidavit of the Divisional Commercial Manager.

IN our considered view, the opposite parties cannot be blamed for the late running of train which was due to the accident of the goods train. There was sufficient cause and grounds for the diverting of the railway traffic on the single route. The District Forum-II, in our considered view, was not right in disbelieving the version of the opposite parties contending in the affidavits of the Divisional Commercial Manager, Sh. M.M. Singh and Sh. Surya Kant Sharma, Announcer. We hold that the appellants were not deficient in rendering service. The District Forum-II was in error in believing the version of the complainant and in rejecting the evidence of the appellants/opposite parties. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum-II awarding compensation to the complainant/respondent is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.