Union of India vs P.K.Sharma

THIS order deals with three appeals numbering A-472/96, A-467/96 and A-475/96. Appeal Nos. A-467/96 and A-475/96 are cross appeals. Subject matter of Appeal No. A-472/96 is the same as in the other set of appeals arising out of journey by the same train and alleging same deficiency of service by the Railways. These matters have, therefore, been clubbed for facility of consideration.

WE shall consider facts in Appeal No. A- 472/96 and then apply the conclusions drawn to the other set of cases. Complainant-respondent herein purchased a first class ticket for four persons on 29.7.92 from New Delhi Railway Reservation Centre for a Circular tour for NDLS- VASCO-MRJBBVT/CT-OKHA.-PJK-VRL-ADL UON-NDLS. A message was flashed from New Delhi Railway Reservation Centre to Kolhapur Railway Station for Reservation of four berths in Train No. 7312 leaving Kolhapur on 15.9.92 and an endorsement to that effect had also been made on the tricket indicating message number. Upon arrival at Miraj complainant found that there was no berth reserved for them. The conductor did not allow them to enter the compartment. The complainant and his family were stranded at Miraj platform and had ultimately to travel to Bombay in a second class compartment by another train under uncomfortable conditions and had also to forego visit to several places of interest in Bombay for which he would have to make another visit. The reason given for not booking berth in Train No. 7321 was that no message had been received either at Kolhapur or at Miraj from New Delhi Reservation Centre. Respondent-complainant further alleged that one Mr. Vaswani though not possessing confirmed ticket was accommodated on a berth which was surrendered by another passenger Mr. Razdan. The appellant-respondent admitted this fact before the District Forum. After hearing the parties D.F. -I held the respondent guilty of deficiency in service and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, and Rs. 80/- spent on second class ticket and Rs. 500/- as the litigation cost. The amount awarded in Complaint No, 2413/93 (A-467/96 in appeal) was Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 56/- and Rs. 500/- respectively.

Ms. Manju Gupta Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant while the case of respondent was argued by the respondent himself. Written submissions were also filed by the parties.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant Ms. Manju Gupta argued that since no charge was being made for sending message to outstations for reservation the case did not fall within the scope of Section 2(o) of the CP Act. We do not accept this contention. The charges paid by a passenger to Railways comprise not only of seat or berth but also cumulatively of all the services that are connected therewith, e.g., availability of toilets, electricity fans, etc. Transmission of a message for further reservation in the case of a circular ticket is also one of those services that the Railways are required to render. In this connection it is useful to peruse Note 3 of Rule 4 of General Rules about reservation of accommodation appearing as Annexure-A of the appeal reproduced below: "In the case of through passengers who have reserved their accommodation and who have to change at an intermediate station, the starting station will advise the junction concerned of the reservation required but reservation cannot be guaranteed by connecting train."

On the question whether it was obligatory for the Railways to have sent massage to the junction concerned the words used in the Rule are "The Starting Station will advise the junction concerned of the reservation required". Whether or not reservation is made at that junction has to depend upon availability of berths at that time. The respondent in this case made the booking 48 days in advance. It is not the case of appellant that message was sent as laid down, but accommodation has already been exhausted even at that time i.e. 48 days before the start of journey. The default is in taking due notice of the message and acting upon that. This failure definitely caused considerable physical and mental agony to the respondent and the latter are, therefore, entitled to be compensated for the same. 7.We do not consider it necessary to go into the question whether there were berths available in the train at Miraj or not. 8. We find enough justification for award of compensation damages for the deficiency in service discussed above. On the question of quantum, we feel that the award of D.F. is on high side and it will be enough if the appellants are burdened with the following: (i) Compensation for physical and mental agony caused - Rs. 2000/-. (ii) Amount spent extra on reservation of second class tickets - Rs. 56/-. (iii) Cost of litigation in District Forum - Rs.500/-.

Order of District Forum-I dated 28.2.96 is modified (and appeal accepted) to this extent. Payment as ordered shall be made within four weeks of receipt of the order. 9. The award of D.F.-I in Appeal No. A- 475/96 is also in the above terms. The complainant has come up in appeal seeking upward revision of damages etc. We do not consider that called for. The compensation awarded is adequate to meet the ends of justice and the appeal is dismissed. In appeal No. A-467/96 the respondents Railways have sought quashing of the order of D.F.-I granting compensation, etc. In view of findings in Appeal No. A-472/96 this appeal is also dismissed. A copy of this order be given to the parties. A-472/96 - Order modified. A-475/96 dismissed. A-467/96 dismissed.