Union of India vs DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA, ADVOCATE

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.6.1993 passed by District Consumer Forum, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 1 of 1991.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant travelled in reserve compartment No. 8114 train No. 411 UP from Lucknow to Meerut City on berth No. 15 on 29.4.1989. His ticket number was 64969. Both the windows did not have a window-pane on account of which the complainant had to face, dust, water and heavy flow of air. He could not sleep throughout the night on account of which he got infection in the eye and headache. THE complainant was put to immense trouble. On 30.4.1989 the complainant lodged a complaint at the Meerut Railway Station. THE complainant was not provided with any answer. It is the duty of the Railway Administration to keep the windows etc. in working condition. THE complainant intimated on 23.8.1990 by registered post. It was also not replied. THEreafter the complainant filed the present complaint for recovery of damage. The opposite party in the written statement has alleged that the records are kept for six months only and after that they are destroyed. As the weather was not of winter, therefore, the complainant would not have been put to any trouble on account of the absence of window-panes. If there was no glass when the journey started from Lucknow, then the complainant should have informed at Lucknow Railway Station itself so that the window-panes would have been provided. The complaint should have made to the Conductor or Guard but that was not done. It is the duty of the Station Master from where the train starts to keep the windows in perfect working condition. The complainant is liable to be dismissal as there is no jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint. If the complainant was very much sensitive, then he should not have travelled in 2nd Class but should have travelled in 1st A.C. or A.C. Chair Car.

The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions before the learned District Forum, who after perusing the evidence came to the conclusion that there was deficiency on behalf of the opposite party, Railway Administration. Hence it directed for payment of Rs. 1,000/- as damages and Rs. 500/- as cost, to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum the opposite party, Railway Administration has come in this appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum. None was present when the case was called inspite of notice having been issued to both the parties. Hence the case is being decided on the basis of documents available in the records.

A perusal of the records will go to show that the jurisdiction of the District Forum has been challenged. According to memo of appeal it has been alleged that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim on the basis of existence of Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act do not apply to those cases where the damages are claimed for deficiency in service during the journey by rail. Those sections are applicable in cases where refund of fare is involved or where there is any loss to the goods transported through railway. The learned District Forum had placed reliance on the case law of General Manager, South Eastern Railway & Ors. v. Anand Prasad Sinha & Ors., I (1991) CPJ 10 (NC), in which it was held that a person travelling by train on payment is a consumer within Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It was further held that the Railway Administration is rendering service in such a case because it was providing transport facility to the public for consideration paid by them by way of fare levied for the ticket. Thus the case relied upon by the learned District Forum clearly brings out that the complainant is a consumer of Railway Administration and the Railway Administration is rendering service on payment on consideration. Hence the complainant is entitled to recover damages if there is deficiency in service on behalf of the Railway Department. It has been alleged by the complainant that the window panes of the window of the compartment in which he was travelling was not in working condition and he had to suffer excessive flow of wind, dust etc. throughout the journey from Lucknow to Meerut City. The complainant had lodged a complaint in the Meerut City Station and had also informed the Railway Administration by a letter sent by registered post. This fact has also not been denied by the Railway Administration. Therefore, it is proved on records that the complainant suffered inconvenience during his journey from Lucknow to Meerut City while travelling in the train. The District Forum was, therefore, perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on behalf of the Railway Administration and has also rightly allowed a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/-. We do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment of the learned District Forum and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.