South Western Railway vs Balasaheb Bangi Horamau

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 9.9.2010 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 2805 of 2010. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order dated 28th May, 2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (in short, "the District Forum'') in Complaint Case No. 78 of 2010. By the said order, the District Forum had found the opposite party (OP/Appellant/Petitioner) guilty of deficiency in service and directed payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000 and cost of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant/respondent.

THE case of the respondent/complainant was that he, a senior citizen, travelled from Bangalore to Hubli on 20.10.2009 by train. When the train halted at Kadur Station there was no one from the Railways to clarify why it had stopped. The train started from Kadur two hours late. As a result, the complainant reached Hubli past mid-night. No public transport available at the Railway Station at that late hour. It was drizzling and also chilly because of which, he fell sick the next day and his return journey had to be postponed. On account of the inconvenience and hardship thus suffered by him, he filed a complaint before the District Forum when he received an unsatisfactory reply after nearly four months.

THE main defence of the petitioner/OP was that under the Railways Act, the Railways were not responsible for the delay in arrival/departure of trains on account of unforeseen circumstances and in the present case the respondent/complainant could have used the waiting room at the Hubli Railway Station if he could not get public transport for going home from there.

THIS revision petition has been filed after a delay of 136 days. By way of explanation, the following has been stated in the application seeking condonation of this delay: "(2) That the petitioner railways had applied for the certified copy of the impugned order dated 9.9.2010 on 21.9.2010. The copy was made available on 13.10.2010. Thereafter the Railways vide letter dated 11.2.2011 appointed the undersigned Counsel to file the revision petition. The authority letter and record of the Fora below was handed over to the Counsel on 16.2.2011 at New Delhi. However, the father of the Counsel for the railways suddenly fell ill on 16.2.2011 and had to be given advanced medical treatment and hospitalisation. Because of these reasons the Counsel for the railways was not able to devote enough time to the work and prepare the revision petition. The petition was finally prepared on 30.3.2011 and e-mailed to the concerned railway officer at Hubli for his signature. (3) That the entire exercise has taken extra time which was beyond the control of the railways or the Counsel. The delay is due to bona fide reasons and not at all with the view to delay the matter any further. Grave prejudice will be caused to the railways if the delay in filing the revision petition is not condoned".

THIS would clearly show that though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought to take the blame of delay on herself, the larger delay (from 13.10.2010 to 11.2.2011, i.e., nearly four months) was on account of the Railways for which there is no explanation/clarification.

IN view of the settled law in this behalf (vide Supreme Court decision in the case of State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (I), II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 793=(2009) 5 SCC 121; Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. v. National Insurance Co. and Another, III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC)=(2009) 7 SCC 768 and V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) v Anita Sena Fernandes, IV (2010) CPJ 27 (SC)=VII (2010) SLT 648=(2011) 1 SCC 53, this delay cannot be condoned on the strength of the causes shown.

THE learned Counsel has argued that the delay be condoned because the decision of the Fora below are not in keeping with the law governing the subject. However, considering the complete absence of any reason/cause to explain the delay of nearly four months in the offices concerned of the Railways, I am not at all inclined to condone the delay.

AS a result, the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Moreover, considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the quantum of relief awarded, consideration of the point of law urged by the learned Counsel can be deferred to a better case. Revision Petition dismissed.