SATYA PARKASH JAIN vs Union of India

THE complainant Satya Parkash Jain along with his family members were to leave Bhopal on 13.12.91 by GT Express and for that purpose, sleeping seats were booked in AC Sleeper Car from Bhopal to Delhi and from Delhi to Chandigarh the seats were booked by Shatabdi Express in AC Chair Car so as to reach Chandigarh on 14.12.91 at 7.30 p.m. to make arrangements for the reception of the newly married couple at Mountview Hotel, Sector 10, Chandigarh on 15.12.91. On 13.12.91, GT Express Train leaving Bhopal at 11.00 p.m. was running late by about two hours and his family members were compelled to stay again in Hotel Jahan Numa at Bhopal to wait for the arrival of the train. On reaching the station after two hours they found that in fact the train was late for about 5-6 hours, that the train reached Bhopal Railway Station at about 5.00 a.m. on 14.12.91, that he along with his family members was astonished to find that there was no compartment of IInd AC Sleeper Car with the train and there was also no other arrangement for passengers holding reservation tickets of IInd AC Sleeper; that they were required to travel from Bhopal to Delhi by IInd Class 3 tiers ordinary sleeper and that they were almost standing in the over-crowded Railway Compartment; that he and his family members had to shift to 1st Class AC compartment at Jhansi for the rest of the journey to Delhi; that they were charged difference of fare from Jhansi to Delhi of AC 1st Class compartment and that no adjustment was made by the respondents for reservation from Bhopal to Jhansi while charging the difference of fare between IInd AC Sleeper to 1st AC. On reaching Delhi at 5.00 p.m. by GT Express, the complainant claimed refund of the amount for not utilising the IInd AC service from the Railway Department on account of the lapses of the railway and handed over the original reservation tickets as also the receipts for over-payment for travelling from Jhansi to New Delhi in 1st Class AC Car. According to the complainant the claim had not been finalised by the Railway Authorities at Delhi inspite of the reminder dated 24.1.92. He has come before this Commission claiming compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the Railway for not providing IInd Class AC Sleeper berth from Bhopal to Jhansi, causing inconvenience to him and his family members against reserved seats. In support of his complaint, he has Annexed C-1 which is a photocopy of the tickets surrendered by him at Delhi on 14.12.91, photocopies of receipts from the Postal Department with regard to his correspondence addressed to CCS refund New Delhi as C-IV and C-V.

THE respondents have controverted the claim on the ground that after the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 on other authority has the power to settle claim or to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority relating to the matters referred to in Section 13 of the said Act. Section 13 of the said Act reads as under : 13. "Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal-(1) THE Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and au thority 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 Administration 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 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder. THE preamble to the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (No. 54 of 1987) reads as under : "An Act to provide for the establishment of a Railway Claims Tribunal for inquiring into and determining claims against a Railway Administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by railway or for the refund of fares or freight or for compensation for death or injury to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

There is no doubt that the Act only takes away the powers of other Courts or Authorities as far as they relate to loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to the Railway or for the refund of fares or freight or for compensation for death or injury to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. It no way takes away the rights of a consumer to claim damages from the Railway with regard to the deficiencies in service which is the subject-matter of the present complaint. Accordingly we conclude that Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 does not debar Consumer Fora to look into the deficiency in service by the Railways to passengers and the Consumer Fora are competent to look into cases of such deficiencies.

On behalf of the respondent it has been argued that Shri S.P. Jain, the complainant him self did not travel by the train and had no locus standi to come to this Commission, in respect of his other relatives/members of the family. The complainant in support of his allegations has brought on record C-1 which is the receipt obtained by Shri S.P. Jain, Advocate and which contained the residential address of the aforesaid complainant as House No. 267, Sector 10A, Chandigarh. It also bears the numbers of IInd A.C. tickets surrendered at New Delhi bearing Nos. 310010 & 410018 as also Tickets No. 04482, 04483 & 04484 and also mentions BPL to JHS travelled 3 tires EXJHS to New Delhi etc. The respondents have produced the original tickets, photocopies of the tickets which are at pages 131 to 135 and also photocopies of the amount paid by the complainant as difference between AC IInd Class and AC 1st Class, Jhansi to New Delhi Railway Station. The perusal of the evidence brought by the respondents clearly shows that the contention of the complainant that they travelled from Bhopal Railway Station to Jhansi in a 3 tier compartment and got their tickets converted from AC IInd Class Sleeper to AC 1st Class Sleeper has been established beyond doubt. The contention of the respondents that Shri S.P. Jain himself did not travel is belied by C-1 the original of which was also seen by us and returned to the learned Counsel for the respondent. It establishes that the tickets were purchased for and on behalf of Shri S.P. Jain.

THE only issue before us now is as to whether failure on the part of the Railway to provide the accommodation which was reserved for the complainant and his companions from Bhopal to Delhi in AC Sleepers is a deficiency in service on the part of the Railway or not ? The Railway Authorities having issued reserved tickets to the complainant for travel between Bhopal and Delhi in AC IInd Class have certainly been deficient in not providing the promised and charged service for travel between Bhopal and Delhi in 2nd AC Sleeper and therefore have been guilty of providing deficient service to the complainant.

THIS deficiency in service which is writ large on the proceedings recorded in C-1 signed and stamped by the Railway authorities certainly caused harassment and inconvenience to the complainant and his family members and we accordingly assess the compensation at Rs. 5,000/- which the respondents shall pay to the complainant within a period of two months, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum till the date of payment. Besides this the respondents shall also pay costs Rs. 1,000/-. Announced. The order be communicated to the parties free of charges. Complaint allowed with costs.