Union of India vs SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU

AFTER carefully perusing the record of the Prakasam District Forum in O.P. No. 63/1996 and its order dated 27.9.1996 therein questioned in the present appeal by the opposite party in that O.P., we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the District Forum that it had jurisdiction to entertain that O.P. and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Authorities.

ON the question of maintainability of the O.P. the order of the District Forum is fully supported by the decision of the National Commission in Union of India v. M. Adaikalam, II (1993) CPJ 145 (NC) = 1993 (2) CPR 94 (NC)= 1986-1995 Consumer 435 (NS), which was followed by us in General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. M. Premkishore, 1998 ALD (Consumer) 98. In the present case also there was no claim for compensation in respect of goods entrusted for carriage to a Railway Administration, or by a passenger in respect of an accident involving a train carrying passengers, or for refund of fare simplicitor. The complainants (respondents before us) in the present case contended that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Authorities and that they should be paid compensation for the same. The undisputed facts of the case are that each of the three complainants had reservation tickets in Section 8 sleeper coach (II Class) of Tirumala Express for travelling from Ongole to Tirupathi on 14.2.1996-the time of departure of the train at Ongole was 1.30 a.m. and its halt there was for five minutes. The complainants in fact travelled in a general compartment and the berths 33, 36 and 34 reserved for them in S. 8 coach remained unoccupied.

According to the complainants they came to the station at Ongole at 1.15 hours on 14.2.1996 alongwith the 1st petitioner''s car driver and personal attender and waited at the beginning of the platform. The train arrived at 2.30 hours. They did not find any noting of coach numbers in the first half of the train and the marking started only from S. 5 onwards. They walked along the platform to the end of the train but did not find any compartment with S. 8 marking. As they were coming back from the end of the train, the guard whistled and as the train was started moving they had to rush into an unreserved coach and they had to travel from Ongole to Tirupathi in that coach standing without sleep during the rest of the night. The complainants alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Authorities in not indicating on the compartment the coach number i.e. S. 8 because of which they could not find the S. 8 compartment in which they had reserved berths resulting in their rushing from one end of the train to the other and ultimately travelling in an un-reserved compartment undergoing great hardship both physically and mentally. The complainants claimed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each and costs and also refund of fare of Rs. 261/-.

THE opposite party filed counter before the District Forum stating that the Tirumala Express was a lengthy train consisting of 22 bogies. THE formation of the train was given. It showed that the coach next to the engine was S. 11 and S. 10 as the 4th compartment followed by Section 9 to Section 5. In between S. 5 and S. 6 there were general coaches, and in between S. 6 and S. 3 there were other coaches and a general coach. S. 3 was followed by S. 2, S. 1 and two other coaches. It was stated in the counter that all coaches were marked and that coach indication lables were pasted to all bogies alongwith reservation charts. It was also stated that one Travelling Ticket Examiner was there for both S. 7 and S. 8. It was further stated that S. 7 was a coach having quotas for stations Duggirala, Nidubrolu, Bapatla, Chirala and Kavali and that the train stopped at each of those stations for a minute only and that the passengers who had reservations in that coach did not find any difficulty in finding it. It was also stated that coach S. 8 consisted of berths reserved for passengers at Vijayawada, Tenali and Ongole and that passengers who had reservations in that compartment easily found it and got in both at Vijayawada and Tenali. It was also asserted in the counter as follows : "As the train approached the Ongole Station the Travelling Ticket Examiner came to Section 8 bogie from S. 7 coach opened the door of the bogie and was waiting to receive the Ongole passengers i.e. petitioners. But the petitioners did not turn up till the train moved. THE Travelling Ticket Examiner waited at the entrance of the S. 8 coach which is next to S. 7 on the platform till the train moved, and then went to S. 7 coach to receive passengers at Kavali. THE berths allotted to petitioner Nos. 33, 34, 36 were not allotted to any passengers and kept vacant till the train reaches Tirupathi. THE Travelling Ticket Examiner got down at Singarayakonda and Kavali expecting the petitioners to join but they have not joined. THE Travelling Ticket Examiner made a note that the passengers at Ongole did not join on the chart."

The 1st complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and was cross-examined on behalf of the opposite party. The Ticket Collector of S.7 and S. 8, Sri K. Subrahmanyam, gave an affidavit on behalf of the opposite party and he was also examined-in-chief as R.W. 1 and was cross- examined on behalf of the complainants. P.W. 1 repeated what was stated in the complaint. He stated in his examination-in-chief that all of them were standing almost at the beginning of platform No. 3 i.e. at the engine side, and that there were no markings of coach numbers upto half of the train and that they proceeded from one end till the other end of the train but did not find any coach with S. 8 marking. He also stated that no reserved bogie was kept open and that no T.C. or TTE showed his face from inside any reserved bogie. He also stated that all of them had to travel in the un-reserved compartment almost in standing position during the entire night upto Tirupathi. He denied that there were markings. He further stated in his examination-in-chief as follows : "My enquiries revealed that the marking slips of coach numbers will be affixed at the starting of the train on the compartments alongwith the Reservation charts only on the platform side of the starting station. There will not be affixture of slips containing coach numbers on the other side. The counter allegations showed that coach No. S. 8 started at Vijayawada. The train viz. Tirumala Express will be kept at Vijayawada on platform No. 1 which is old platform No. 1A. In Vijayawada the facing of the bogies to the platform No. 1 will be on the left side if one faces towards engine. Whereas in platform No. 3 of Ongole the bogie faces right side if one faces the engine. Since there were no affixture of coach number slips on both sides of the coach even though they were affixed at Vijayawada, they will not be visible to platform No. 3 of Ongole because those slips will be on the back side of the bogies. This happened because of lack of proper service and due to deficiency of service on the part of South Central Railway Administration."

IN his cross-examination he stated that the point where he was standing on the platform at Ongole was at the second bogie from the engine. He also stated that he was searching for coach numbers and that no railway employee was seen on the platform and that no Station Master was also seen on platform No. 3. He also asserted as follows : "It is not true to say that marking slips will be pasted on both sides of the train. It is not true to say that the TTE was on the platform or that I missed to notice. It is not correct to say that had I made enquiries I would have got the coach. IN fact my making enquiries did not arise as no Railway Employee was available on the platform."

IN his affidavit R.W. 1 accepted that coach number lables were attached at Vijayawada station. He further stated as follows : "The reservation charts will be pasted on one side near the entrance. The printed slips will be attached on both sides of each bogie." He stated that as the train came to Ongole he came to S. 8 bogie from S. 7 and opened the door of S. 8 bogie and waited at the entrance to receive the Ongole passengers i.e., the complainants, and that the complainants did not turn up till the train moved. He further stated that the Station Master or any other railway employee or any porter or guard or under-guard would easily direct the passengers to the correct bogies and that had the petitioners made enquiries anybody would easily direct them to S. 8 bogie. He asserted that there was no deficiency in service on his part. IN his examination-in-chief he admitted that S. 7 and S. 8 coaches were not connected by vestibules. From this it follows that he could not have gone from S. 7 bogie to S. 8 bogie till the train stopped. Therefore his assertion that "as the train came to Ongole station, I came to S. 8 bogie from S.7 and opened the door of S. 8 and waited at the entrance..." was not correct. He could have got down from S. 7 bogie to the platform only after the train stopped at Ongole station. IN his cross-examination he stated as follows : "Platforms at Vijayawada and Tenali are situated on the same direction from the train. But the platform at Ongole is in opposite direction. Beyond Tenali there is no quota passengers for S. 8 coach till Ongole. Kavali quota is also in S. 7. It is not correct to say that I have not come to S. 8 coach. It is not correct to say that I have not opened S. 8 coach. It is not correct to say that marking slips will not be affixed on both sides of the train. It is not correct to say that they will be affixed on the one side of the train at the starting point towards platform. It is not correct to say that marking slips are not there on S. 7 and S. 8 coaches towards platform at Ongole. After Ongole the train stops at Kavali. Normally the train stops only for a minute at Kavali. There are ten bogies in between general coach No. GS 6278 and coach No. S. 8. It takes five minutes to cover the distance of these ten bogies. If there is luggage and ladies are also there it may take some more time."

To the questions put by the Forum he answered as follows : "I cannot say as to who was on duty as TTE in S. 10 coach. I cannot say names of the other TTEs on duty in the remaining coaches on that day. At Ongole I did not talk to ASM on duty. There was no necessity to talk to him on the platform. ASM will be in his office room he will not come out. ASM on duty has not come to platform No. 3 on that day."

P.W. 1 got marked the xerox copy of the ticket as Ex. Al and copy of his letter dated 19.2.1996 addressed to the General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad and the Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad as Ex. A-2. He stated in Ex. A-2 all the material facts stated by him in his complaint. The District Forum considered the entire material on record. It was inclined to believe P.W. 1 as it accorded with probabilities. The District Forum held that the TTE had not opened the door of S. 8 coach and that no railway employee was found and that S. 8 label was not pasted and that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. On that basis it allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party (appellant before us) to pay Rs. 10,000/- to each of the three complainants with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 18.4.1996, till the date of payment and also costs of Rs.1,000/- to them.

AS already stated by us at the beginning, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Authorities. It is not disputed by the appellant that the complainants had to travel in a general coach. The 1st complainant had consistently asserted in Ex. A-2 letter dated 19.2.1996 addressed by him to the General Manager and the Chief Commercial Manager of South Central Railway, and also in the complaint, and in his evidence that he was standing at the beginning of the platform when the train arrived one hour late at Ongole around 2.30 a.m. on 14.2.1996. In his cross-examination he stated that when the train arrived he was standing beside the 2nd bogie from the engine. According to the formation of the train given in the counter, the fourth compartment from the engine was S. 10 and following it were S. 9 to S. 5 - S.8 was the sixth compartment from the engine. If the compartment numbers were noted on the platform side of the train when it stopped at platform No. 3 of Ongole, the complainants could not have missed the compartment numbers including ''S. 8''. The 1st complainant categorically stated in Ex. A-2 itself that there were no markings of coach numbers in the first half of the train and that the marking of coaches started from S. 5 onwards and that he could not find any coach with marking of S. 8. That was also stated in the complaint before the District Forum dated 10.4.1996 and also in his evidence as P.W. 1. It is admitted by R.W. 1 that S. 8 compartment was attached to the train at Vijayawada and that the facing of the bogie at Vijayawada would be on the same direction from the train and that the platform in Ongole was on the opposite direction. P.W. 1 categorically asserted that there were no markings on the compartments forming the first half of the train till S. 5 on the platform side when the train halted at Ongole. There was no good reason to disbelieve him. It is inconceivable that P.W. 1 could not have noticed S. 8 marking on the sixth compartment from the engine if in fact S. 8 label was put on it on the platform side, when he had seen S. 5 and other markings on the compartments thereafter and when he and others with him were particularly looking for S. 8 compartment. It may be that the Ticket Collector in S. 7 compartment got out from the compartment after the complainants passed the S7 compartment. R. W. 1 admitted that there was no vestibule connection between S. 7 and S. 8 in which case it is highly doubtful that he could have opened the door of S. 8 compartment from outside as it is normal for passengers to lock the doors of the compartment from inside to safeguard themselves during the night. Admittedly the train arrived at Ongole after midnight about 2.30 a.m. when it was most likely that all passengers in the compartment would be fast asleep. Under the circumstances it is difficult for us to believe that R.W. 1 got down from S. 7 compartment and opened the door of S. 8 compartment just like that. It is also equally improbable that he verified whether there were markings on compartments S. 7 and S. 8 on the platform side of the train when it halted at Ongole station. His statement that the markings on S. 7 and S. 8 compartments were made on both sides at Vijayawada is not convincing on the facts of the present case. We are therefore inclined to agree with the conclusion of the Prakasam District Forum that the evidence of P.W. 1 was more in keeping with the probabilities of the case than the evidence of R.W. 1 and that there were no markings on the platform side from the engine upto S. 5 compartment because of which S. 8 compartment could not be found by the complainants and others accompanying them.

WE may also note that this is not the first case of its kind. In Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi v. P.S.R.K. Thimmaji Rao, II (1998) CPJ 619=1998 ALD (Consumer) 39, we had to consider similar complaint that coach numbers were not indicated on the compartments of the train. In that case also it was contended on behalf of the railways that number slips were pasted on all the coaches and that there was no difficulty in locating the particular coach. While upholding the findings in favour of the complainants in that case, we observed as follows : "It is not disputed that the express and fast trains halt in most stations only for a few minutes, sometimes even less than five minutes. The passengers who have reservations with reference to numbered compartments have to wait with their luggage at the proximate place where the compartment usually is made to halt. If the compartment does not have a number, it is very difficult for aged and disabled passengers to find the particular compartment in which they have their reserved berths, and get into them with their luggage within the few minutes the train stops. It is therefore incumbent on the Railways to see that numbers given to the compartments are not easily wiped out or lost which happens when it rains and numbers written in chalk get watered down and disappear. The suggestion is that painted number plates could be put up in the slots or grooves provided to the compartments so that they could be easily found in Express and fast trains which do not stop for long in stations. It is also necessary that instructions are given that trains stop in such a way that numbered compartments are brought to halt at pre- fixed place or slot allotted to them on the platform. This is an aspect of management and very essential for seeing that no avoidable inconvenience is caused to the travelling public. The Railways have to gear themselves upto the needs and requirements of the consumers, especially when State enjoys monopoly and there is no competition. The State will have to see that minimum discomfort is caused to the passengers using trains. This will also facilitate commuters in maintaining the time schedule because otherwise passengers will be forced to resort to other unwelcome methods."

The only question that remains is whether the District Forum was justified in awarding Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to each of the complainants. We are of the view that compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to each of the complainants is on the higher side. Though assessment of monetary compensation with exactitude for the hardship, etc. suffered by the complainants for one night is not possible, considering the status of the first complainant- he being a working District Judge at that time and the other complainants being his wife and daughter we are of the view that compensation of Rs. 2,500/- for each of the complainants would be reasonable.

In the result, we modify the order of the District Forum by reducing the compensation awarded from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- to each of the three complainants. In other respects the order of the District Forum shall stand. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.

IF the amount had not already been paid, Rs. 7,500/- shall be paid by the appellant to the respondents within six weeks from today together with interest thereon and costs as directed by the Prakasam District Forum. Appeal partly allowed.