Union of India vs JASPAL SINGH

UNION of India representing Northern Railways is the appellant. The order under challenge is of District Forum, Amritsar dated September 19, 1997. A direction was given to the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant Jaspal Singh of Amritsar.

THE broad facts are not in dispute. Hence it is not considered necessary to refer to in detail the pleadings of the parties. THE complainant booked five tickets for journey Amritsar to Howrah with a break at Patna. THE tickets were got reserved at Railway Station, Amritsar on May 31, 1997. All the passengers boarded the train on May 31, 1997. THE problem started at Patna. Only two seats from Patna to Howrah were confirmed whereas the other passengers were to be on waiting list. On starting journey from Patna on June 4,1997, they came to know that Train No. 3049 leaving for Howrah was not having First Class Compartment for which the tickets were got reserved. Thus, they were put to inconvenience. As per plea of the Railways, since first class coach was not available, the same was not in the train for technical reasons. THE journey is stated to have been performed in a second class compartment without any seats. THE family members of the complainant suffered illness apart from inconvenience. Claiming Rs. 2 lacs as compensation, the District Forum was approached. Denying the liability, the Railways submitted the version that there was no negligent act on their part in not providing first class coach at Patna with the train. On the evidence produced on affidavits and documents, the impugned order was passed. The present case is squarely covered by the decision of this State Commission in Union of India v. B.S. Sangha, Advocate, II (1997) CPJ 552=1997 (2) CON.LT 449. Several cases earlier decided by different State Commissions were discussed in the aforesaid judgment. The following propositions of law were laid down : (i) There may be a case of deficiency in rendering service in not providing reserved seats for whatsoever reason may be such as non-availability of such a coach of the category for which reservations were made. (ii) In order to grant compensation for the loss suffered, apart from finding of deficiency in rendering service, it is necessary to further find that such loss suffered was on account of negligent act on the part of the opposite party. Non-availability of such category of coach for technical reasons or for reasons which were beyond the control of the Railways, cannot be considered to be a negligent act entitling the complainant to compensation.

It is not considered necessary to repeat the entire discussion on the points urged in the present case as such points in detail have been discussed in the case of B.S. Sangha referred to above. Learned Counsel for the Railways relying upon the aforesaid judgment argued that grant of compensation of Rs.5,000/-in the present case was uncalled for as there was no negligence on the part of the Railways in not providing first class coach at Patna to accommodate two of the passengers of the complainant. With regard to the other three, they were on the waiting list and no reservations were made. There is force in this contention. As per evidence produced by the Railways in the form of affidavit of Daulat Ram, Station Master, Amritsar, first class compartment could not be attached to Train No. 3050 Dn due to some administrative exigencies as balancing rake of 3049 came to Amritsar ex-Howrah without first class coach. No spare first class coach was available as such at Amritsar, which could be provided with Train No. 3050 Dn. The aforesaid train halted at Patna. Obviously when first class coach did not leave Howrah for Amritsar with the train, which was to go down as such, the Railways could not be held to be negligent while not providing first class coach at Patna. At Amritsar, no first class coach was available, which could be attached with the aforesaid train as per affidavit of Daulat Ram, Station Master referred to above. It would have been more specific, if such reasons in detail had been given. Since no cross examination was conducted on Daulat Ram, Station Master, specifically it could not be brought on the record as to why the coach could not be attached or the same was detached at Howrah before the train left for Amritsar. Be that as it may, in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the Railways was negligent in not providing first class coach at Patna with the train.

SINCE negligent act on the part of the opposite party has not been established, obviously compensation for loss if any, suffered under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be granted. SINCE there was deficiency in rendering service in not providing first class coach, which resulted in inconvenience to two of the passengers for whom seats had been reserved, they could be compensated by payment of costs. In the case of B.S. Sangha (supra), a sum of Rs. 500/- was allowed as such and in the present case, for inconvenience etc. caused, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- would be just compensation. Remote damages are not required to be granted in the complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act. The controversies about inconvenience caused to other members of the family of the complainant for whom no tickets were reserved, cannot be considered. Likewise, inconvenience caused while travelling without any seat from Patna to Howrah cannot be considered as that was not a coach where seats were reserved. The complainant and his family members travelled in that coach at their own risk.

FOR the reasons recorded, this appeal is partly allowed. Order of the District FORum granting compensation of Rs. 5,000/-is set aside. Whereas it is maintained with respect to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/-. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal partly allowed