SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, NORTHERN RAILWAY vs PREM SOOD

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 19.9.2000, passed by District Forum No. 1 in Complaint Case No. 219/2000 - entitled Mrs. Prem Sood & Ors. v. Senior Superintendent, Northern Railway.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent had filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum averring that on 5.10.1999, she got booked accommodation in Sleeper Coach (S-2) for herself and 5 other members of the family to travel on 15.10.1999 from Delhi to Una (Himachal Pradesh), through Himachal Pradesh Express, leaving Delhi at 11.20 p.m. It was stated by the respondent, in her complaint, that on 15.10.2000, when she reached Railway Station, Delhi with luggage alongwith her family members, she was informed that Sleeper Coach (S-2), in which she and her family members had reservation, was not available and in place on the said Sleeper Coach, a General Non-Sleeper Coach, was attached. It was further stated in the complaint, that on boarding the Non-Sleeper Coach, it was found that there were already unauthorised passengers present in that Coach alongwith their luggage and the staff of the appellant failed to evict them. THE grievance of the complainant, in the complaint, in nutshell, was that she and her family members had to face lot of inconvenience and on reaching Una, when excess fare voucher was presented, for the refund of the excess amount, the same was not honoured on the ground that money was not available. It was stated that as per the programme, the respondent and her family members had to go on further pilgrimage, but, had to return back as the respondent had fallen ill. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the respondent, in the complaint, claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 4,56,200/-. The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was resisted by the appellant and the stand taken by the appellant, was that the appellant had provided alternative accommodation to the respondent timely in a suitable Coach as the Sleeper Coach was declared damaged. It was also stated that the passengers, who were not willing to travel, were informed to take the refund of difference of fare. It was contended that in view of Rule No. 3.2(B), printed in the Railway Time Table, the respondent was not entitled to any compensation.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and has directed the appellant to pay to the respondent, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for the alleged deficiency in service and inconvenience caused to the respondent and the other two minor members of the family. The appellant has also been directed to pay to the respondent another sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. It is not in dispute that the respondent had got advance reservation on 5.10.1999 for journey from Railway Station, Delhi to Railway Station, Una (Himachal Pradesh) by Himachal Pradesh Express on 15.10.1999. It is also not disputed that the respondent had confirmed reservation for the abovesaid journey for herself and her family members in Sleeper Coach (S-2). It is also undisputed that on 15.10.1999, when the respondent and her family members reached at the railway station, they came to know that Sleeper Coach (S-2), was not available and in place of that Sleeper Coach, a General Non-Sleeper Coach, was attached. The stand taken by the appellant, before the District Forum, was that the Sleeper Coach could not be attached to the train as the same was declared damaged. The onus to prove the above fact that the Sleeper Coach, was damaged and, therefore, could not be attached to the train, was on the appellant. The learned District Forum, in the impugned order, has held that no reliable evidence, in support of the above contention, was produced/filed by the appellant. Even in the present appeal, no document has been annexed or produced before us to substantiate the above contention of the appellant. The learned District Forum, placing reliance on a decision of this Commission in case S.S. Bansal v. Northern Railway, reported as I (1997) CPJ 467, has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and on the above ground, has passed the impugned order. In our opinion, the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, in the given facts, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.