Union of India vs Abdul Majeeth

ON the ground that the reservation made by the complainant and his wife to travel comfortably in I Class from Trichy was cancelled by the opposite party and were allotted berths in II Class sleeper coach and that the complainant''s wife viz., the 2nd complainant who was then pregnant, had to travel in the two-tier accommodation provided causing her much physical inconvenience and hardship, and, therefore, alleging that there is deficiency in service, the complaint was preferred by the complainants.

THE lower Forum, by its order dated 12.2.1999 accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties to make payment of Rs. 3,000/- to the 1st complainant and Rs. 5,000/- to the 2nd complainant on the ground of deficiency in service with a cost of Rs. 300/-. Aggrieved by the same, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

The Tariff Manual issued by the Railways mentions under Chapter III which relates to "Reservation of Berths and Reserved Accommodation," under Section 306 as follows: "306. Reserved accommodation not guaranteed-Railway Administration do not guarantee reserved accommodation-whether seats, berths, compartments, coaches or carriages-by any particular train and will admit no claim for compensation for inconvenience, loss or extra expenses due to such accommodation not being provided or attached to trains by which asked for."

The opposite parties viz., Railway Administration would contend that no doubt the complainant and his wife were issued with tickets for their travel by I Class for the journey to be undertaken on 26.4.1998. But the particular train Rameswaram Express which commenced its journey from Rameswaram as Train No. 6102 comprised about 8 coaches including I Class and A/C. On its arrival at Trichy, it takes on another eight coaches including a I Class and A/C. While so, the I Class coach which has been attached to the said formation developed some defect and it was found out that there arose a wheel alignment fault. Therefore, the coach which was about to be hauled to be berthed on the platform could not be hauled and thus it was not attached to the train. It is further stated by them that they immediately made alternate arrangements by providing accommodation to all those passengers who had reserved in I Class, in the sleeper class with an option given to them either to travel in the sleeper class or to get refund of the fare paid by them. Therefore, according to the opposite parties, the I Class coach could not be attached to the train because the risk in hauling the coach was grave and it had such a defect that if it had been attached, it would have led to derailment of the train and, therefore, the Railway Administration, in the larger interest of the people and to avoid a tragedy of such a nature, did not haul that coach to the formation of the train and, therefore, what was done was done in the larger interest of the people and thus there was no deficiency in service. As against this plea, we do not find any circumstances or material from the complainants'' side to brush aside his plea raised by the opposite parties.

EVEN otherwise, there is no allegation nor it has been stated or proved that the non-attachment of the coach was wilful or that there was any wanton negligence that has resulted in the failure to attach the coach to the train. Therefore, in such circumstances, Rule 306 would come into play and bar the claim exempting the opposite parties from liability. Moreover, this Commission has already taken a similar view in an identical manner in A.P. No. 383/95 dated 22.9.1995. A similar plea was raised and this Commission has held that the Railways cannot be held for deficiency in service. In another decision rendered by this Commission in A.P. No. 451/98 on 7.3.2002, this Commission reiterated the same and held that in such circumstances, the Railways cannot be made accountable nor can be held to have committed any deficiency in service. To the same effect is the decision of this Commission rendered in A.P. No. 382/95 on 12.10.1995 and A.P. No. 369/96 rendered on 8.9.1998. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have to hold that the order passed by the lower Forum cannot be sustained and that the opposite parties cannot be accused of any deficiency in service nor can be held liable for any compensation. In the result, this appeal is allowed without cost. The order of the lower Forum will stand set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed, in the circumstances, without cost. Appeal allowed.