Union of India vs K. THIRUVENGADAM

-THE facts leading to this Revision Petition are that the present Respondent Mr. K. Thiruvengadam had filed the complaint before the District Forum, Thanjavur against the General Manager, Southern Railway, Assistant Secretary, Public Grievances Cell and Chief Commercial Superintendent who are officers of the Southern Railway. According to the allegations contained in the complaint, the complainant had approached the Southern Railway at Thanjavur on 12th September, 1992 with written application in the prescribed format for reservation of seats in 1st class for his family consisting of five members from Thanjavur to Howrah via Madras without any break in the journey on route and also for the return ticket. He also paid reservation charges. THE journey was to start on 22nd September, 1990. He was issued five tickets for the journey from Thanjavur to Howrah and the same number of tickets from Howrah to Thanjavur. THE specified amount for the tickets was paid by the Complainant. THE Complainant had intimated his friends in Calcutta about his arrival and all of them were eager to receive him and his family during the Puja holidays. In between the date of purchasing the tickets and the date of the actual commencement of the journey there was no communication by the Sourthern Railway to the Complainant. As planned the Complainant commenced his journey on 22nd September, 1990 from Thanjavur and reached Madras on 23rd September, 1990. From Madras Egmore the Complainant and his family had to travel to Madras Central Station in Taxi for catching the train for Howrah. On reaching Madras Central Station the Complainant found that their names were missing from the reservation chart. THEir names were also missing in the waiting list chart. THE Complainant tried accommodation in the. Ilnd class for himself and his family but could not get the same. THE Complainant made attempts to get refund of unused portion of tickets but he was unsuccessful. THE Complainant and his family had to stay in Madras in private lodges and had to spent huge amount which they had to borrow from friends. After several reminders about the refund, the Chief Commercial Superintendent made refund of some money withholding certain percentage of money as cancellation charges. THEreafter the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Thanjavur claiming Rs. 18,600/- as damages on account of various items.

RESPONDENTS were duly served with notices of the complaint and an advocate appeared on their behalf and requested time for filing counter. Despite a couple of adjournments the advocate did not file any counter on the ground that he had not received any information and details of facts for preparing the counter. In support of his case the Complainant filed an affidavit. The District Forum, believed the allegations of the Complainant and allowed Rs. 18,600/- as compensation to him plus Rs. 400/- as cost of the proceedings. The District Forum further ordered that in case the above amount was not paid within the period fixed in the order, the Opposite Parties would undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act).

Feeling aggrieved the Opposite Parties filed appeal before the State Commission Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras.

THE State Commission held that there was negligence on the part of the Railway Authorities at Thanjavur as they failed to give proper intimation to the Authorities of Madras Central Station to have five seats reserved for journey from Madras to Howrah on 23rd September, 1990 and it amounted to negligence and deficiency in the rendering of service. It may be mentioned here that in the appeal the Opposite Parties had also taken objection to the effect that the claim was barred under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. THE State Commission overruled that objection except with respect to the refund of Rs. 300/- which was charged by the Railway Authorities as cancellation fee as it was found outside the scope of the Act in view of the Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. THE State Commission however, modified the order of District Forum about the other claims and awarded in all Rs. 6,000/- as compensation. Rs. 500/- were also awarded to the complainant as consolidated costs for the proceedings before the District Forum and the State Commission. THE appeal was disposed of accordingly. Not being satisfied with the above order of State. Commission, the Opposite Parties have filed the present petition.

BEFORE we take up this revision petition on merits we may mention here that order passed by the District Forum is bad in the eye of law as it passed composite order i.e. ordering the payment of the amount and simultaneously directing that in default an order under Section 27 of the Act. i.e. order about imprisonment of the Opposite Parties. Such a composite order should not be passed. If an order passed under Section 14 of the Act is not complied with by the Opposite Party, a notice should issue to the defaulting party and he should be heard before passing an order under Section 27 of the Act. The party concerned is entitled to give reasonable explanation about the default. On merits we are satisfied that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity. There is no allegation in the complaint that the Complainant before commencing the journey from Thanjavur had satisfied himself as to whether as a matter of fact seats had been reserved for him and his family members from Madras to Howrah. He had confirmation only in respect of his reservation for the journey from Thanjavur to Madras. The case of the complainant is that the Southern Railway authorities had not intimated him that no reservation was available for him and his family members from Madras to Howrah. It is not the duty of the Railway Authorities to take the initiative to inform the intending traveller about the availability of reservation from another station. It is for the traveller to satisfy himself after making an enquiry from the concerned officers that due reservation has been made. Therefore, the Complainant is at fault when without getting confirmation about the reservation he proceeded to Madras en route his journey to Howrah. The State Commission has held that the Southern Railway was negligent and deficient in rendering of the service on the ground that proper instructions were not sent by the Railway Authorities at Thanjavur to Madras Central. We made enquiries from the Counsel for the Petitioner about this fact and he has produced documents to show that on 14th September, 1990 message had been received from Madras to the effect that five seats had been wait-listed at serial numbers 22 to 26 for the train leaving Madras on 23rd September, 1990. Therefore, it cannot be said that proper message was not sent by the Railway Authorities at Thanjavur to Madras. Here it will be pertinent to mention that had the Complainant made enquiries from the Railway Authorities, Thanjavur on or after 14th September, 1990 he would have come to know that he would not get any confirmed reserved accommodation for his onward journey from Madras to Howrah.

THE District Forum and the State Commission relied upon the affidavit of the Complainant without having any evidence produced before them to the effect that the Complainant had intimation that reserved seats would be available to him at Madras for his onward journey to Howrah when he commenced his journey from Thanjavur on 22nd September, 1990. As the case has been decided without proper evidence both the District Forum and the State Commission have committed material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction.

WE do not think it necessary to remand the case for taking fresh evidence of the Complainant because as noticed above, the message had been received from Madras at Thanjavur that no accommodation was available for the intended journey of the Complainant and his family from Madras to Howrah and at the most they had been wait listed at serial number 22 to 26. For the foregoing reasons we accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order of the State Commission and the District Forum and dismiss the complaint filed by the Complainant-Respondent. We make no order as to costs. Revision Petition accepted.