Union of India vs K.K.BHATT

THIS appeal has been filed by the Union of India and another defendants against the order of the District Forum dated 9th October, 1990.

BRIEFLY, the case of the complainant/respondent is that he had purchased a ticket at; Delhi and got reserved accommodation in A.C. Chair-Car at Delhi, from Bombay to Delhi. While returning from Bombay, he requested there for changing his ticket from A.C. Chair Car to A.C.-2 tier-berth to a railway employee on duty and he was informed by the employee that he had been allotted a berth. He surrendered his seat in A.C. Chair-Car but when he went to occupy his seat in A.C.-2 tier-sleeper he was not allowed to do so on the ground that his seat had already been allotted to some-one else. As he had already surrendered his seat in the A.C. Chair-Car so he was accommodated in the Pantry-Car. He alleged that he suffered great inconvenience in travelling in the Pantry Car. Consequently, he claimed Rs. 5,000/- as damages. No one on behalf of the Union of India or the General Manager appeared before the District Forum and therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte. The learned District Forum passed an order in favour of the complainant for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- against the defendants and directed that the amount be paid within a month failing which the defendants would pay interest at the rate of 15 % per annum from the date of order till the date of payment. The defendants have come up in appeal before the Commission.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the District Forum at Delhi had no jurisdiction to try the petition as the cause of action had arisen to him at Bombay. We have duly considered the arguments. The question whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to try a complaint is a mixed question of law and fact, and therefore, such a question cannot be allowed to be raised in appeal for the first time. It has already been mentioned that on behalf of the appellant no one appeared before District Forum and disputed the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be allowed to raise the said question.

HOWEVER, we have gone through the complaint and find that the complainant had alleged therein that he purchased a ticket for journey from Bombay to Delhi at Delhi and got the reservation of that journey made at Delhi. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act relates to the jurisdiction of the District Forum. It is inter-alia provided therein that the complaint would be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the cause of action wholly or in part arises. In the present case as mentioned above, the complainant paid the amount for purpose of the ticket to the railway authorities at Delhi and got the reservation made there, therefore, a part of the cause of action arose at Delhi. In the circumstances, the Forum at Delhi had the jurisdiction to try the complaint. Second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the complainant was not entitled to any damages as he had been accommodated in the Pantry Car and reached Delhi by the same train. We regret our inability to accept the said submission. The complainant, in view of the assurance of the appellant that he had been given a berth in A.C.-2 tier-sleeper, surrendered his A.C. Chair-Car ticket. However, he was not given any berth as assured by the employee of the railway on duty. He travelled in Pantry Car where he did not get sleeping accommodation and otherwise also suffered inconvenience. In addition to the physical inconvenience one also feels mentally up-set in such circum stances. It is common knowledge that the employees of the Railway do things casually and do not bother for the convenience of the passengers. It also cannot be ruled out that the seat allotted to the respondent might have been allotted to some other person by the concerned employee with a view to obtain benefit for himself. Any how the respondent in our view is entitled to exemplary damages from the appellants.

LAST contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the grant of damages cannot be precisely quantified in terms of money and the damages granted are very high. There is substance in this submission. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the damages granted by the District Forum are higher side. We think that ends of justice would be met if the damages to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- are granted to the respondent. We order accordingly. Before parting with the judgment we express our anguish that the employees of the Railway do not care for the passengers. The present case is the instance of injustice done to a passenger. We would appreciate if an enquiry is ordered by the appellants in the matter and action is taken against the delinquent official(s). For the aforesaid reasons, we partly accept the appeal modify the order of the District Forum and grant damages to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent. In view of partial success in the appeal we make no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.