STATION SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPPUZHA RAILWAY STATION vs THOMAS K.J.

THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Malappuram, in O.P. No. 589/95. Opposite parties are the appellants.

THE complainants, two in number, had reserved two berths on 1.10.1995 to travel from Alappuzha to Bokaro Steel City Express and paid Rs. 688/- as charges. THE complainant reached the platform sufficiently early but he was informed that the compartment in which they had to travel was cancelled due to non- availability of coaches, He approached the Station Master requesting him to accommodate him in a reserved compartment as they have to travel for 3 days and 2 nights but that was in vain. THE complainant had to travel in a general compartment which was packed to more than the capacity without water and proper lighting and they had to spend 63 long hours without food and even without washing their face. When the complainants demanded a refund at Bokaro Railway Station, the officer concerned asked them to wait. As they were strangers in that place and it was at 8.30 p.m., the complainants could not wait but leave the Station without refund. Each of the complainants has claimed as compensation of Rs. 1,500/- for the deficiency in service. In a joint version filed by the first and second opposite parties, it was averred that the General Manager, Southern Railway, was a necessary party. It further stated that the tickets are booked for travel of passengers under Section 51 of the Railways Act which states that ticket shall be deemed to have been issued subject to the condition of availability of accommodation in the class of carriage and the train for which the ticket is issued and that if no accommodation is available in the class of carriage for which a ticket is issued, an holder thereof travels in a carriage of a lower class, he shall on returning such ticket be entitled to a refund of the difference between the fare paid by him and the fare payable for the class of carriage in which he travels and that the Railway Administration do not guarantee reserved accommodation. It was further averred that train No. 8690 Bokaro Express is having primary maintenance at Bokaro Steel City in South Eastern Railway and South Eastern Railway is expected to attach sufficient number of sleeper coaches by this train, that the train No. 8689 express which returns as 8690 express arrived at Alappuzha 20.45 hrs. on 12.10.1995 and was having shortage of one sleeper coach, that there was no spare sleeper coaches available at Alappuzha Railway Station and as such train No. 8690 express of 14.10.1995 started with shortage of one sleeper coach, that to facilitate reserved passengers of this train to travel without any inconvenience a second class coach was attached in the place of the sleeper coach and marked as S5 coach, that all passengers who had reservation by S5 coach were provided with second class accommodation in this coach, that the passengers were advised to either travel by the second class coach or to get full refund of the fare at Alleppey-Railway Station, that the complainants opted to travel by the second class coach and that the complainants were provided with accommodation in a reserved second class coach which was manned by a travelling ticket examiner who prevented entry of unreserved passengers. The allegation that there was no water and light in the compartment is not true. The complainants were provided with reserved accommodation on seat Nos. 53 and 54 in second class coach marked as S5 and the complainants have accepted this by signing on the certificate for granting refund issued by the ticket examiner. The opposite party has properly issued a certificate for the refund of the difference of fare to the complainants but the complainants were not patient enough to accept refund of the amount at Bokaro Steel City Railway Station. It was also contended that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the provision contained in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

Before the District Forum PW 1 was examined and Ext. A1 was marked. The complainant gave evidence in terms of the complaint. However, no evidence was adduced by the opposite parties The District Forum held that the complainant could travel only in General compartment with much inconvenience and passed an order directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to each of the complainants. There was also a direction to refund the difference in the class of travel to the complainant and also pay cost of Rs. 200/- to each of the complainants.

FEELING aggrieved by the said order this appeal has been preferred. In this appeal, learned Counsel submitted that it is on account of reason beyond their control of Railway Administration the sleeper coach could not be attached. Learned Counsel also submitted that they attached a compartment and made it reserved compartment and a TTE was also posted there and that the averments that it is a general compartment and not a reservation compartment is not correct. Even in the version they stated that the complainants were provided seat Nos. 53 and 54. He also submitted that the complaint is bad as under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act only Railway Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

IN this case the complainant has given evidence in terms of the complaint. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to show that the sleeper coach could not be attached for reasons beyond their control. Even assuming that reserved accommodation was made available to the complainant, there cannot be any doubt that the complainants must have suffered a lot as they travelled three days and 2 nights without sleeping facility and with other difficulties mentioned by the complainant. As indicated the opposite party has not produced evidence to show that the failure to attach sleeper coach is for reasons beyond their control and it has to be treated as a deficiency in service and in the circumstances we do not think that the District Forum has erred in holding that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. It is true that the District Forum has also ordered refund of the difference of fare directing. Though of course the opposite parties themselves voluntarily to pay difference the District Forum has no jurisdiction to order to pay the difference in fare in view of provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act. We, therefore, vacate that part of the order. Coming to the quantum of compensation we feel that the amount awarded is slightly on the high side. The District Forum has proceeded on the basis that the compartment was not converted into a reservation compartment. We, therefore, reduce the compensation from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 750/-. The opposite party will pay Rs. 750/- to each of the complainants as compensation within a period of one month. Each of complainant also will be entitled to cost of Rs. 200/-. The appeal is disposed of as above. Appeal disposed of. _______________