Union of India vs ASHOK KUMAR MOHAPATRA

THE opposite parties before the District Forum in C.D. Case No. 28 of 2000 are the appellants.

WE examined the case records and the judgment of the lower Forum and perused the counter and other evidence in support of the respective contentions of both the parties. The District Forum after taking into consideration all the documents on record including Railway ticket, returned a finding of deficiency of service and directed the railway to refund the fare worth of Rs. 7,930/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of demand and compensation of Rs. 500/-. Feeling aggrieved the railway have preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before disposing with the points raised during the hearing of the appeal, we proceed to examine the tenability of the grounds in detail. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. D.N. Mishra contended that the railways do not guarantee reserved accommodations as per Rule 306 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Moreover, in our view, the said Rule only protects railways against any argument that the railways are bound to guarantee reserved accommodation. Hence, the said rule does not provide unbriddled powers to cancel reservations. Having given such assurance on a particular train and passenger reporting on that train at a given time and place, he could not have been deprived of accommodation. The next point of Mr. Mishra is that mere purchase of a ticket did not give a right to reservation to the complainant. There cannot be any dispute that the passenger is not entitled to get reservation as soon as he purchases a ticket, but it is equally true that the railway cannot decline to make reservation arbitrary.

LASTLY it was seriously contended by Mr. D.N. Mishra before us on behalf of the Railway Authority that reservation is not given as a matter of right. That may be true. But the railways have to act reasonably and we fail to understand as to why Railway authorities could not say that there was a huge rush and tickets were assured strictly on the basis of a priority list prepared. Those who had applied earlier got reservation earlier. The complainant''s reservation could not be considered because of his application came too late. Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel for appellants, argued the case strenuously but failed to prove their deficiencies in service and inordinate delay in disposing the matter, but persistently pursuing the same unnecessarily upto the level of this Commission.

THE only question that remains is whether the District Forum was justified in awarding both compensation of Rs. 500/- and interest @ 9% p.a. We are of the view as per the settled principle of law that the compensation and interest cannot go together. THErefore, keeping in view the said principle we are led to hold that the Forum was not justified in directing payment of interest @ 9% p.a. as we do not find any material to assess the loss and mental agony allegedly suffered by the complainant due to non-issue of confirmed reservation for which the ticket was cancelled without undertaking the journey. In the result, we modify the order of the District Forum by not allowing the interest. In other aspects of the order of the Forum below, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error therein warranting our interference. If the amount has not already been paid i.e., Rs. 7,930/- shall be paid by the appellants to the respondents within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order together with compensation of Rs. 500/- as directed by the District Forum. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.