Union of India vs M.B.NAYYAR

THIS appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] for setting aside the impugned order dated 3.10.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-I] in Complaint Case No. 845/97-99/2000. The District Forum-I allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation and costs. Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum-I, the present appeal has been preferred by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Union of India, through its General Manager, Northern Railways, Baroda House, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi and Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Chandigarh.

THE facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be narrated in the succeeding paragraphs : The complainants/respondents i.e. Shri M.B. Nayyar and Mrs. Raj Kumari Sekhri are the residents of House No. 5784, Modern Complex, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh. The complainants/respondents aged 60 and 80 years respectively, booked two first class seats in advance for a journey commencing on 24.7.1997 from Chandigarh to Rohtak (Haryana) vide train No. 4096, dated 24.7.1997, bearing PNR No. 230-838/93038 and ticket No. 47489629 in Himalayan Queen/Ekta Express train. The reservation for the 1st Class was confirmed and the complainants/respondents were allotted Coach No. F-1 (Coupey B) by the opposite parties/appellants. On the scheduled date of journey i.e. 24.7.1997, the complainants/respondents reached Chandigarh Railway Station in connection with the boarding of the said train as per schedule at 17.35 hrs. (5.35 p.m.) and were shocked to find no 1st Class compartment on the arrival of the train inspite of the fact that their names figured on the chart displayed at the station. After getting no assistance from anybody, the complainants/respondents enquired from the Guard of the train Sh. R.P. Singh, who informed the complainants/respondents that no 1st class compartment/coach was attached to the said train on 24.7.1997 and asked the complainants/respondents to board any ordinary 2nd Class coach of the train since the train was about to leave. The Guard also issued a certificate mentioning that no 1st Class is attached to 4010DN Ekta express/Himalayan Queen train. The complainants in utter disgust and helplessness per force managed to board an ordinary 2nd class jam-packed coach of the said train without a seat and had to travel standing till Ambala. On reaching Ambala, the complainant No. 2 on account of tension, strain and stress and congestion in the coach, developed uneasiness and high blood pressure since she was already a patient of high blood pressure and in order to avoid all such difficulties ad problem, she along with complainant No. 1 had preferred to travel by the upper class whichever available since there was no seat available in the A.C. Class even till Panipat as there is no A.C. coach available for onwards journey to Rohtak etc. The complainant No. 1/ respondent No. 1 had to call for his personal car from Chandigarh to reach back Chandigarh, thereby the discomfort caused on account of the grave negligence on the part of Railways had to force the complainants/respondents to abandon their journey at Ambala and return thereby causing inconvenience, discomfort resulting into ill-health of complainant No. 2/respondent No. 2 besides monitary loss. The relatives of the complainants/respondents who had been informed about the arrival of the train at Rohtak became worried and frantic enquiries and telephone calls at Rohtak Railway Station were made and subsequently they came to know the date of the complainants/respondents. The complainants/respondents had to suffer irreparable loss resulting into sickness, discomfort, inconvenience, mental agony and harassment on account of the unimaginable deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/appellants knowing fully well that no 1st class bogey is attached with the train No. 4096/4010 DN and hence the same was not attached on 24.7.1997. The complainants/respondents have further averred in para 7 of the complaint that no such booking should have been done by the Railways opposite parties. In view of giving a journey-cum-reservation ticket of 1st Class for that day i.e. 24.7.1997 had not only caused irreparable loss to the complainants/respondents but had also made mockery of the Indian Railways and their functioning especially, in the eyes of complainant No. 2/respondent No. 2, who had come from abroad to meet her near and dear ones inspite of her old age-factor and after spending huge amount of money. The complainants/respondents had claimed the following reliefs from the opposite parties/appellants :

The complainants/respondents had also demanded interest @ 24% on the above mentioned amount of Rs. 1,06,282.00 form the opposite parties/appellants before us in the present appeal.

IN reply, the opposite parties/appellants had admitted about the two tickets having been booked by the complainants/respondents from Chandigarh to Rohtak which were confirmed for 24.7.1997 in Himalayan Queen. The opposite parties/appellants also admitted that Railways could not provide 1st Class coach to this train i.e. Ekta Express on the said date and contended that it was due to technical as well as administrative reasons, as the situation was beyond the control of the Railway Administration at the starting station. It was further averred in the reply that the mistake had occurred due to the faulty operation of the computer and they regretted the fault committed by the Railways. On filing appeal by the opposite parties/appellants before us, notice of the same was sent to the respondents/complainants who appeared through Mr. Sanjay Judge, Advocate. The record of the complaint case was requisitioned from the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate and the learned Counsel for the respondents/complainants Mr. Sanjay Judge, Advocate. WE have carefully perused the record of the complaint case and have gone through the impugned order appealed against. The learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties vehemently opposed the case of the respondents/complainants saying that it is coincident that on 24.7.1997, the Himalayan Queen/Ekta Express did not have the 1st Compartment because of some technical fault, as a result of which the Railways could not provide a first class to the respondents/complainants. There is no deficiency in service on their part because it was on the technical ground beyond the control of Railways to provide 1st Class bogey on that fateful day. The learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties in the appeal contended that the Forum had failed to appreciate the explanation given by the Union of India-appellants for non attachment of 1st Class coach to the said train due to some technical as well as administrative reasons which was specifically given in para 9 of the Affidavit as well as the reply, but the Forum had not taken into consideration the unchallenged testimony of the Railway officials in this respect because no cross-examination had been done by the complainants/respondents in respect of the affidavit submitted by the Union of India in this case. Thereafter, the Forum has failed to appreciate that the unchallenged testimony of the Railway official regarding non attachment of the coach on the said date and time with the said train and has wrongly passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside on this ground. The learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Sanjay Judge, Advocate argued that it is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the Railway Administration because once confirmed tickets for 1st Class have been booked by the Railways, they should have ensured that the alternate arrangements are made and some seats in the said train provided in the air conditioned bogey. However, no such arrangements were made as a result of which the complainants/respondents who are between the age of 60 and 80''s suffered great mental agony, physical torture and financial loss. They should, therefore, be adequately compensated. He further argued that Rs. 5,000/- allowed by the District Forum-I as compensation is adequate and he is fully satisfied with the order of the District Forum-I.

THE District Forum-I in its order has dealt with the complaint case in detail and recorded a finding at Page 3 last para, which is reproduced as under : "...O.Ps. have pleaded that the mistake had occurred due to some inadvertence in the computer as the Himalayan Queen was earlier carrying 1st Class coaches with its crew, but the same could not be provided on the said date due to technical as well as administrative reasons. This case is of its own nature, where complainants were forced under the stress of circumstances to travel by ordinary second class jam-packed compartment and also to break their journey, shortly thereafter at Ambala, as they felt suffocated in the said coach and had even to return back instead of reaching their destination. So deficiency in services on the part of the O.Ps. is writ large, of firstly issuing tickets of first class and then confirmed the same by mentioning the coach number, but then depriving the passengers of the services of the railway for performing their journey by the coach for which they had paid to O.P. It was incumbent duty of O.Ps. to have intimated the complainants about the first class coach having not been attached with the said train well before time, if it so, and tickets for 1st Class should not have been issued, nor to have been confirmed. This is not the case where O.Ps. could not know about the coach being not attached with the train. THE said information could have been gathered by O.P. department-railways from Kalka from where the train starts. So this is a case of utter negligence."

THE District Forum-I has adequately proved the deficiency on the part of the appellants/opposite parties is well established.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the deficiency on the part of the appellants/opposite parties is patently established and we do not find any justification to interfere in the judgment passed by the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh. Thus appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. Copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.