Railway passengers are 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, and the Railway Administration provides 'service' for consideration as defined under the Act. The compensation awarded to a consumer must have a rational relation to the nature and extent of the injury, inconvenience, or physical and mental suffering caused to the complainant.

Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT - RAILWAY PASSENGERS AS CONSUMERS - SERVICE RENDERED BY RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION - QUANTIFICATION OF COMPENSATION - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING.
Fact of the Case:

The complainants, a retired High Court Judge and his wife, filed a complaint before the State Commission alleging that they had suffered mental and physical inconvenience during their train journey due to the poor condition of the first-class coupe compartment, including non-functional fans, defective shutters, and exposed nails. The State Commission directed the Railway Administration to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- each to the complainants.
Finding of the Court:

The National Commission upheld the maintainability of the complaint, holding that railway passengers are 'consumers' and the Railway Administration provides 'service' for consideration as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission found that the findings of fact recorded by the State Commission were fully supported by the materials on record.
Issues: 1. Whether railway passengers are 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act? 2. Whether the Railway Administration provides 'service' for consideration as defined under the Act? 3. Whether the State Commission erred in quantifying the compensation awarded to the complainants?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression 'service' contained in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act specifically includes the provision of facilities in connection with transport. 2. The Railway Administration provides transport facilities to the public for consideration paid by them by way of the fare, levied for the ticket. 3. The State Commission erred in quantifying the compensation awarded to the complainants without considering the well-settled principles governing the fixation of compensation in such cases.
Final Decision: The National Commission allowed the appeal to the limited extent of reducing the compensation payable to each of the complainants to Rs. 1500/-. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

JUDGMENT

V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—This is an appeal filed against the order of the State Commission, Bihar dated 13th April, 1989 in Complaint No. 3/SC/1989 on its file jointly by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta and the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Adra, District Purulia. West Bengal. By the said order the State Commission has directed the South Eastern Railway Administration to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation to each of the two respondents for the inconvenience and mental and physical suffering caused to them.

2. The first respondent is Shri Anand Prasad Sinha, retired Judge of the Patna High Court and the second respondent Smt. Madhuri Sinha is his wife. Both of them boarded 24 Dn Hatia Patna Express on 17.4.1988 at Ranchi Railway Station and travelled in a First Class Coupe of Coach No. 191. It would appear that the fans were not working in the said compartment and though a complaint was made to a Conductor, no action was taken to set right the fans at any time during the course of their journey despite the first respondent having also complained to the Railway Authorities at Bokaro and Gomoh Railway Stations. It was further alleged in the petition of complaint filed by Shri Anand Prasad Sinha that the iron shutters in the windows were not in working condition and could not be secured at night time and even the shutters with glass panes could not be used since the glass was missing. The rexin of the upper berth was badly torn and there were two exposed rusty nails which caused some injuries on the person of Respondent No. 2. It was the case of the complainant that due to bad condition of the Coupe compartment he and his wife had to suffer great mental strain and restlessness throughout the journey in addition to the physical injuries sustained by the complainant’s wife for which she had to take medical treatment after reaching the destination. Along with the petition of complaint an application was filed by the complainant praying that an officer may be urgently deputed by the State Commission for conducting a local inspection of the Coupe compartment in question in order to ascertain the true state of facts. On the said application, the State Commission passed an order directing the Secretary of the Commission to inspect the aforesaid Coupe and to make a report about its present physical condition in the context of the allegations made in the petition of complaint. The Superintendent of Patna Railway Station was directed to extend all facilities for the said inspection. The Secretary accordingly inspected the said Coupe compartment on May 3,1988 in the presence of Shri Bharat Shankar Verma, Head Train Examiner and he found that the Coupe compartment in question was in a very bad condition. There were no glass panes in the glass shutters of the windows and the steel shutters could not be operated because of defective levers. The condition of the upper berth was found to be pitiable since the rexin was completely damaged and two nails were exposed which were likely to cause injuries. Copies of the inspection report were furnished by the State Commission to the parties on both sides. No written objection was filed on behalf of the Railway Authorities challenging the correctness and truth of the facts mentioned by the Commissioner in his report. No attempt was also made before the State Commission by the opposite parties (appellants herein) to adduce any evidence in rebuttal of the contents of the Commissioner’s report. Thus the report of the Commissioner which fully corroborated the averments contained in the petition of complaint stood un-contradicted.

3. A preliminary objection was raised by the opposite parties before the State Commission contending that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act since the passengers travelling by train could not be regarded as ‘consumers’ and the Railway Administration was not providing ‘service’ for consi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document