S.S. BANSAL vs NORTHERN RAILWAY

BRIEF facts of the case are that Mr. S.S. Bansal, complainant got reserved a berth on 23.7.93 from New Delhi to Jalpaiguri on 5622-DN, North East Express by AC Two Tier for a journey to be performed on 19.9.93. On the date of departure, the complainant reported well in time to board the train. He found that the Coach No. Al in which he had been given reservation was not attached to the train. To add to his misery was the fact that there was no one to guide the complainant and other passengers who had been given reservation in the said coach. There was no notice on the Notice Board nor any alternative arrangement made for such passengers.

THE complainant was helped to get a space for sitting in an over-crowded ordinary sleeper. THE electric connection in the said compartment was out of order with the result that there was neither light nor fan. Because of the over-crowding, the complainant could not move to reach the toilet. While being put in the crowded compartment the bushirt of the complainant was torn and his spectacles were broken. One attach case was left at Delhi Railway Station because of the jostling due to over-crowding in the compartment. THE complainant remained unwell for a period of about 10 days after the journey. THE complainant was not refunded the excessive fare charged for AC Coach, either at New Delhi or on completion of the journey at Jalpaiguri. THE complainant wrote several letters including letters dated 8.10.93, 28.11.93 and 20.6.94. He sent the original certificate to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refund) New Delhi Railway Station on 11.2.94 and received a cheque for Rs. 781/- dated 17.10.94. THE cheque was made payable at Calcutta and was posted quite late to the complainant so that it could be deposited only on 12.1.95 and the complainant had to pay Rs. 20/- as collection charges. The complainant claimed compensation. The case was contested. District Forum-II took the view that claim for refund of the excessive fare, could be made only before the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. With regard to the alleged deficiency in service it was observed that failure to provide AC Two Tier Coach on that particular day must be due to some compelling reason and it was open to the complainant to abandon the journey and claim total refund of the amount. It was further observed that the complainant having chosen to travel by a lower class was entitled to the refund of the difference which he had already received. With regard to the other short- comings it was stated that there might have been some over-crowding which could have been anticipated and the complainant having decided to travel in sleeper Coach opted to suffer that part of the inconvenience.

Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. We have heard the appellant in person and Mr. H.L. Nanda, Advocate for respondent. The contention of Mr. Nanda, the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act has no jurisdiction to deal with cases which have been placed under the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 13 read with Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. He has placed reliance on two decisions. These are Union of India and Another v. M. Adaikalam, II (1993) CPJ 145 (NC) and an unreported decision of this very Commission in Chief Commercial Manager (Refund) Northern Railway v. Goyal S. Pal, Appeal No. 332/94 decided on 22.12.94. We have gone through these judgments and we are of the view that these do not apply to the facts of the present case. It will be seen that in addition to the claim for refund of the difference between the fare of AC Two Tier Coach and ordinary Sleeper Coach, the complainant had suffered considerable inconvenience and harassment on various other counts in his journey from New Delhi to Jalpaiguri. The complainant had got the reservation made almost two months before the journey. Assuming that the coach could not be attached to the train for operational reasons, there was no justification in not informing to the passengers booked for that coach that they would be accommodated in other compartments. The refund of the excess amount should have been made without any delay. The complainant not only suffered inconvenience during the journey for want of electricity and suitable berth but his clothes got torn, his spectacles broken and one item of his luggage was left behind. It is further apparent from the record that even though the journey was completed on 20th September ''93 the opposite party took unusual long time in sending the cheque dated 17.10.94. Again even though the complainant had furnished his New Delhi address and Telephone number in the reservation application, for some unknown reason, the refund of cheque was made payable at Calcutta. The cheque was ultimately encashed only on 12.1.95. The facts clearly speak about the suffering undergone by the complainant. This was, therefore, a case of deficiency in service and not a case of refund of the excess amount of fare charged from the complainant simplicitter. Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act does not provide for compensation on account of deficiency in service. The jurisdiction of the Fora in such cases is thus not ousted.

IN Adaikalam''s case, relied on by Mr. Nanda, initially the case was of non-delivery of the goods. During the pendency of the appeal before the State Commission, the goods were delivered to the consignee and the case which survived related to delay in delivery of the consignment. When the matter came up for revision before the National Commission, the Railways referred to Rule 121 of the Coaching Tariff which gave immunity to the Railways in so far as the delivery of the goods within a definite time or period was concerned. The decision, in other words, did not relate to deficiency in service and, therefore, the said decision has no application to the facts before us. With regard to the other decision relied on by the learned Counsel the same related to refund of the fare together with interest and it was held by this Commission that claims for refund of the fare were within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals constituted under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and the Fora had no jurisdiction. The present case, on the other hand, relates to deficiency in service on various counts here in above stated. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances as also the facts that the complainant was ultimately refunded the difference between the two types of coaches, we are of the view that it will meet the ends of justice if the appellant is paid Rs. 3,000/- on account of compensation. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the appellant within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of the order be sent to both the parties as well as District Forum-II. Appeal allowed.