UNION OF INDIA vs MAJOR DAVINDER

THIS is a Revision Petition filed against the Order dated 23rd September, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in First Appeal No. 36/93. The facts as appear from the record are that the present Complainant-Respondent Major Davinder Kumar at the relevant time was serving in Three Assam Rifles and was posted in the Eastern Sector. He was on annual leave till 15th March, 1993. All of a sudden he was directed to report for duty in the Unit in February, 1993 and as such he was to catch the train at Railway Station, Ropar. When he reached the Railway Station from his village the train was about to leave. The delay in reaching the Railway Station occurred as there were security checks at many places in the way in view of the existing situation in Punjab. Leaving his luggage, wife and young daughter in the second class compartment close to the main gate of the Railway Station he went to the booking window to get exchanged his railway warrant entitling him and the members of his family to travel free by 1st class/2nd class AC. The Booking Clerk as well as the Station Master did not exchange the warrant as the train was about to leave and the whistle had been blown. As the train set in motion the complainant Devinder Kumar had to run to a crowded 2nd class compartment. The train has hardly covered a distance of 400 to 500 yards when it came to a halt as some RPF personnel had pulled the chain as some of their companions had been left behind. Taking advantage of the halt the Complainant went to the Guard and showed his railway warrant and apprised him of his inability to get it exchanged. The Guard is said to gave assured him that he could get it exchanged at Sirhind Junction where the train would halt for a long time. On arrival of the train at Sirhind Junction, the Complainant again contacted the Guard who told him that he should meet the checking staff and only then he would issue the certificate. The Complainant went to the main platform and contacted the Ticket Collector who told him that he was not empowered to exchange the warrant and the same could be done by T.T.E. However, the T.T.E. was not available. The Complainant again contacted the Guard and the Ticket Collector. It is alleged that they told him that as the T.T.E. was not available the warrant could be exchanged at Ambala. When the train reached Ambala Cantt. at about 10.00 p.m. the Complainant again approached the Guard but the latter told him that the warrant could not be exchanged and that he might purchase the tickets. Left with no alternative and with insufficient funds with him, the Complainant went out of the Station with the help of the Guard and purchased second class tickets to Delhi for himself and his family members. The complainant and his family members were unable to get seats or berths in the crowded second class compartment and they had to stand near the corridor for four hours. Because of the careless attitude of the railway staff the Complainant had to suffer financial loss and undergo mental agony. He filed a complaint before the District Forum, Ropar claiming Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the tickets and Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and anguish.

IN the counter filed by the present Petitioner herein - Union of India through the Senior Divisional Commercial, Manager, Northern Railway, it was stated that under Rule 128 clause 3(b) of Military Tariff No. 5 the Complainant was bound to get the warrant exchanged at the forwarding station and if he was unable to do so he was to approach the Guard before undertaking the journey as he was to issue a certificate permitting him to travel upon the condition that subsequently he was to get the warrant exchanged. The Complainant had reached the Railway Station late and as the train has already whistled to leave the station the Station Master or his staff could not exchange the warrant. It was not disputed that the train had stopped after covering a distance of about 400 to 500 yards from the Rupnagar (Ropar) Railway Station. It was also not disputed that the Complainant had contacted the Guard at Sirhind Railway Station. However, it was pleaded that the complainant was advised to contact the Ticket Collector so that necessary formalities could be completed. In such cases some penalty has to be imposed and the Complainant was advised to pay requisite penalty but he did not agree to do so. At Ambala also, the Complainant was advised by the Guard to contact the Ticket Collector and the Ticket Collector was asked by him (i.e. Guard) to do the needful but the Complainant was not ready to pay the penalty as required under the Rules. Thus the Complainant travelled without ticket from Rupnagar (Ropar) to Ambala. The District Forum gave detailed reasons for believing the version of the Complainant and discarded the version of the Railways. It would not be out of place to mention here that evidence given by the Guard of the train and the Ticket Collector posted at Sirhind Junction was mutually contradictory. In such circumstances the District Forum disbelieved the version of the Railway that penalty was demanded from the Complainant and that he had refused to pay the same. The District Forum accordingly accepted the complaint and awarded to the complainant Rs. 2,000 in all as compensation for mental agony, humiliation and financial loss.

FEELING aggrieved the present Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. Punjab but it did not meet with any success. Still not being satisfied, the Opposite party has come before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

WE have heard the Petitioner in detail. However, we do not find any force in this Revision Petition. Both the District Forum and the State Commission have believed the version of the Complainant that he had approached the Guard of the train at all available opportunities but the latter refused to help him. If, as alleged by the Railway, the complainant was travelling without ticket from Ropar to Ambala Cantt. it was the duty of the Railway officials to charge from him the necessary fare for himself and his family members. However, it was not done. This shows that the version of the Complainant is true. It is regrettable that the Railway officials had tried to lead false evidence. We need not dilate much upon the arguments advanced on behalf of the Revision Petitioner as this is a Revision Petition and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission. As noticed earlier the averments of the complainant have been believed both by the District Forum and the State Commission. Accordingly we hold that there is no merit in the present Revision Petition. We direct that the Railway Administration shall recover the amount paid as compensation to the Respondent - Complainant in pursuance of this order from the officials who are found responsible for the deficient service rendered to the complainant. For this purpose, the Railway authorities shall conduct an enquiry and fix the responsibility on the concerned members of the staff within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.