U.O.I vs Susanta Kumar Saha

BRIEF facts in this case are these: On 26.09.2011, Mr. Susanta Kumar Saha, the complainant purchased his rail ticket from Railway Reservation Counter at Barrackpur railway station. It was a Sleeper Class (in short SL) reservation for Utkal Kalinga Express and the date of journey was on 11.10.2011 from Kharagpur to Puri. On the date of journey, as per enquiry made at Howrah Station, and also with Railway Service Enquiry, he got confirmation that the train would run through Kharagpur and not from Howrah. Accordingly, he went to Kharagpur Station to board the train. At about 8.20 p.m. he learnt from the Station Master that the Utkal Kalinga Express will not be touching the Kharagpur Station. The Complainant was shocked to know that the train route has been diverted since May 2010 after the incident of Gyaneswari Express accident. Therefore, ultimately, he failed to board that train. Hence, he has filed a complaint through a letter addressing to the DRM, Eastern Railway, Sealdah Division, but there was no response from DRM for more than one year and five months. Alleging deficiency in service by the OP, the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ''District Forum ''), Barasat, West Bengal.

THE District Forum dismissed the complaint. The complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short, State Commission ''), West Bengal on 04.10.2012. The State Commission allowed the appeal and awarded Rs.1,00,000/ - compensation and Rs.1,000/ - as cost of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the State Commission the OP preferred this revision.

AT the admission state of this revision, we have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The Claims Tribunal is empowered to deal with some specific matters relating to compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non -delivery of animals or goods or claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a Railway administration to be carried by the Railways. In this case, we have noticed that the complainant has neither claimed for refund of fare or part thereof nor refund of any freight. His case is that, despite purchasing a valid reserved ticket from the OP ''s railway ticket counter, he suffered mental agony, stress, tension and physical stress. It was because of incorrect and misguiding information given by Railways '' 139 enquiry service, as well as at the enquiry counter at Howrah Station, that he was compelled to avail alternative arrangement with his journey for more than 7 hours. It was deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP. The learned counsel for the OP submitted that present case is covered under ''''Force majure '''' as the route of Utkal Kalinga Express (Train No. 18477/18478) was diverted for the time being due to the Naxalite attack/ accident of Gyaneswari Express. The said information of route diversion was dissociated through media in advance and also on 06.10.2011, through the daily newspapers, namely Sonmarg, The Statesman and Sambad Pratidin.

WE are not satisfied with the submissions made by the counsel for OP. It was the duty of OP staff manning the ticket counter is supposed know every relevant information about the running of the desired train between the starting and destination points, while issuing the reservation ticket to the passenger. The Complainant might not be aware of the diversion of the route of the desired train for his journey from Howrah Station to Puri. It was not a compulsion to read newspapers. It was a surprise, that the reservation form was filled by the complainant ,which carried each and every information of the passenger, such as his address, telephone /mobile number etc. OP should have at least been careful and made an attempt to have sent SMS or communicated on the address of such passengers to whom reservations were issued. Hence, in our opinion, the OP has not acted cautiously, while issuing the ticket to the Complainant and subsequently not intimating either by way of SMS or contacting him on his postal address. The explanation provided by the OP/Railway authority is not satisfactory.

THEREFORE , we find no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by State Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.