Union of India vs KEDARNATH JENA

THE opposite parties in C.D. Case No. 47 of 1990 of the District Forum, Cuttack are the appellants in this appeal. THE respondents 1 and 2 as complainants filed the aforesaid case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Railways. Complainant No. 1 is a practising Advocate at Cuttack who had to go to Bangalore for treatment of his son in Kidwai Hospital with his wife. THE second complainant had also gone along with complainant No. 1 probably to help the complainant No. 1 in the matter of treatment of his son. For their return from Bangalore, they obtained reserved tickets in Down Gauhati Express and they were allotted Berth Nos. 70, 71 and 72 in S4 Compartment. It stands mentioned in the complaint petition that even though the reservations were not initially confirmed, subsequently they got the same confirmed and the complainants moved in the said train. THEir grievance is that the schedule time of leaving Bangalore of the aforesaid train was 10.30 p.m. and the complainants had reserved their berths in the train leaving Bangalore on 9.6.90. THE train, however, did not leave Bangalore that day and they were made to wait till 9 a.m. of the next morning that is 10.6.90 when the train left Bangalore city. Apart from the inconveniences and expenses incurred by the complainants in hiring a lodging room and spending more for their stay there, it has been alleged that the complainant''s son who was ailing had to suffer because of the delay of 10 hours in the departure of the aforesaid train. Besides the above, it has been alleged that the complainant No. 1 who is a practising Advocate at Cuttack could not attend a case on 12.6.90 as he arrived at Cuttack ten hours late on that very day. He is alleged to have incurred a professional loss of Rs. 500/-. In the complaint petition, the complainant has also made a grievance that the Railway has not provided the minimum facilities to which a passenger is entitled to as there was no drinking water the station, they found the toilet was unusable and unhygienic and the maintenance of the compartment was poor.

THE opposite party No. 1 appears to have filed a show cause denying their liability in the matter. THE main stand of the opposite parties-Railways is that no doubt the Railway Authorities taken utmost care to see that the trains punctually run according to the schedule in the timetable, but at times they fail to observe the punctuality for various reasons. It has, however, been stated simultaneously that the Railway has published public time tables but they do not undertake that the train should start or arrive at the time specified in the time tables nor they will be accountable for any loss or inconvenience or injury caused to any passenger which arise out of delays or detentions of the trains. It has also been stated that the passengers and in that matter the complainants have no legal right to claim compensation as alleged as the Railway has no legal duty to perform in all the matters referred to in the complaint petition. THE Railways have gone to the extent of saying that the purported laches and negligence even if proved do not give any legal right to the complainants to claim any compensation on the basis of such default. THEy, however, deny all the allegations made against them with regard to supply of water, fan and light and cleanliness in train or want of proper attention of the Railway Authorities and further assert that the Railway has not received any such complaint from any other passenger except that of the complainants in the present consumer dispute case. In the said show cause, the maintainability of this case has been challenged on the ground that the complainants are not consumers nor the relief prayed for is available to be granted in their favour under the Consumer Protection Act. The Forum after hearing in its final decision observed that the Railway Authorities should try to minimise the inconveniences of the passengers and ensure better services to them. It was, however, held that though the complainants have suffered inconveniences, no direction is possible to be given to the Railway Authorities as prayed for by the complainants. The District Forum awarded a compensation for the inconvenience caused to the complainants directing that each of the complainants would be entitled to Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) as per the copy submitted along with the memorandum of appeal, which we found to have been corrected to be one hundred in the original judgment copy in the L.C.R. The correction so made has been counter signed by the President and wanted the Railway Authorities to follow the instructions in the light of the discussions made by it.

Having gone through the entire records, we are not inclined to interfere in the final decision of the District Forum for several reasons. Coming to the memorandum of appeal, it has been rather admitted that there has been long delay in filing of this appeal. An application for condonation of delay has been filed, but it discloses practically no materials for condoning the delay. All that has been said in the memorandum of appeal as well as in the application for condonation of delay is that the copy of the order of the District Forum was taken by the staff of the Railways on 4.12.1992 where after the correspondence was made with higher authorities at Calcutta for a decision regarding the filing of the appeal. It has been alleged in the said application that though the higher authorities were approached on 7.12.1992, no decision for filing the appeal was communicated by the higher authorities presumably due to the misplacement of the letter. It has next been said that the Advocate who was entrusted for filing of the appeal could not file the same within the period of limitation due to the fact that he underwent an operation and he was only fit to resume his practice on the 1st of February, 1993. All steps have been taken for filing of the appeal at the earliest after recovery of the Advocate for the appellants. The application conspicuously omits to mention as to when the higher authorities of the appellants communicated their decision for filing of the appeal against the order of the District Forum. Thus the application lacks the particulars on the basis of which it could be available for consideration as to whether there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on or before 3rd of January 1993 and the appellants themselves have received the copy of the impugned order on 4.12.1992 and the limitation evidently expires after a month thereafter.

EVEN if we condone the delay in filing of the appeal, we do not find any merit for interference. It has not been disputed that the complainants were bona fide passengers who had booked their berths for their journey from Bangalore to Cuttack in the train leaving Bangalore at 10.30 p.m. on 9.6.1990. It has not been disputed by the present appellants that the train did not leave Bangalore on that day, but its departure from Bangalore city was on the following day at 9 a.m. The xerox copies of the tickets filed by the complainants show that out of the three passengers who had purchased tickets, two of them have been suffering from cancer. The declaration of the Railways if any that they are not answerable for any delay either in departure or in arrival of the train is unilateral and cannot be interpreted to mean that the time of arrival and departure of the trains depends upon the whims and caprices of the authorities. In particular cases where the delay in the arrival or departure of a train is explained to the satisfaction of an adjudicating authority, it may be possible to take a view that though the passenger might have suffered loss or injury for the delay caused it is not the consequence of any deficiency on the part of the Railway Authorities. There may be many bona fide reasons justifying the lack of punctuality in respect of a particular train. It does not mean that the lack of punctuality is not to be taken notice of or that punctuality may be an exception. It is common knowledge that the Railway has announced that punctuality is their motto. The show cause filed by the Railways does not offer any explanation whatsoever as to the cause of ten hours of delay for the Gauhati Express to leave Bangalore which was scheduled to leave at 10.30 p.m. on 9.6.1990. The District Forum has however expressed the view that the complainants have not alleged negligence on the part of the Railway Authorities nor they have adduced any positive evidence proving the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. If punctuality is the normal rule and delay in departure of a train is an exception, it was the duty of the Railways to prove exception by disclosing the reasons for which the delay occurred. The Railways having not done so, we are of the view that there was deficiency on the part of the Railways in the matter of departure of Gauhati Express train as alleged by the complainants. The sufferings of the complainants due to the delay in departure of the train is merely a consequence. For quantification of such sufferings an adjudicating authority may require evidence but for proving the deficiency itself no evidence appears to be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. As regards the other deficiencies on the part of the Railway administration as alleged in the complaint petition so far as the drinking water, cleanliness, lack of maintenance of the coaches etc. are concerned, it is true that no specific evidence has been adduced before the Forum although the same were denied by the Railway Authorities in their show cause. These allegations of the complainants are so notorious and well known that an adjudicating authority may take notice of the same from what he has seen around him in every day life. The suggestions of the nature the District Forum has suggested is to improve and remedying the deficiencies to the advantage of the passengers who have paid for the services from the Railways. We, therefore, find no justification to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.