Back
BIHAR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PATNA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Chaturvedi, President;
Mr. C.R. Venkataraman & Dr. Asma Ahmad, Members
DEOBARATA CHATTOPATHYAY @ DEOBARATA CHATTARJEE—Complainant
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.—Opposite Parties
Complaint Case No. 46 of 1993—Decided on 8.8.2000
Railway Authorities - Deficiency in Service - Railways Act, 1989, Section 147(2) - The court discussed the complainant's entitlement to reserved seats, the neglect of Railway Authorities to remove unauthorized occupants, and the liability of the Railway Administration for deficiency in service. The court referred to a previous case to establish the complainant's right to be carried safely in the train in the reserved compartment and held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased reserved tickets for his daughter's wedding guests, but the berths were occupied by unauthorized persons, causing hardship and inconvenience to the guests during their journey from Patna to Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Authorities for failing to provide the reserved berths to the guests, leading to hardship and inconvenience.
Issues: The main issue was the complainant's entitlement to reserved seats and the liability of the Railway Authorities for deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was entitled to be carried safely in the train in the reserved compartment and that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint and directed the contesting opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, along with Rs. 1,000 as costs.
Mr. Justice A.N. Chaturvedi, President—The case of the complainant is that his daughter Sushmita was married at Gaya on 21.11.1992. The members of the Barat party alongwith the daughter of the complainant were to return to Delhi by the morning of 23.11.1992 for ceremonies of the groom side. In view of this, the complainant on 29.10.1992 had purchased fifteen confirmed tickets with reservation for 22.11.1992 in Coach No. 53 of Shramjivi Express from Patna to Delhi. On 22.11.1992 Shramjivi Express entered Platform No. 1 at about 11 a.m. but Coach No. 53 was already occupied by some rally participants going to Delhi. The Barat party loaded their luggage in the said coach. He (complainant) tried to contact the Railway Authorities and the police who were at the said platform in numbers as by that very train Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India was also travelling. Inspite of repeated requests to the police personnel and Railway Authorities they did not come to the rescue of the complainant and members of Barat party. The train left at 11.20 a.m. with all the members of Barat Party standing with difficulty. Since he (complainant) had to see off two groups of guests leaving Gaya for Calcutta by Doon Express and for New Delhi by Rajdhani Express, he returned back to Gaya.
2. Further case of the complainant is that at Delhi where he (complainant) had gone to attend the function of groom side on 24.11.1992, he was told that the members of the Barat party had to stand or sit on trunks or site on the floor all the way to Delhi. Since the members of the Barat party were not provided seats inspite of valid journey-cum-reservation ticket, they suffered a lot. Though the Railway Authorities were under legal obligation to provide the reserved seats to the members of Barat party, they failed to do so which not only amounted to failure in rendering service on the part of Railway Authorities but also lowered the prestige of the complainant in particular and the State of Bihar as a whole as the members of the Barat party carried an impression that in Bihar even after valid journey-cum-reservation tickets seats are not allotted. On the allegations aforesaid, the complainant has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- per head) as compensation for the hardship and mental agony caused to him and to his guests (Barat Party) throughout the journey from Patna to Delhi with costs.
3. Out of the four opposite parties only opposite party No. 1 (Union of India) and opposite party No. 2 (Divisional RailwayManager, Dinapur) have filed joint written statement and have contested the case. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 (Station Master, Patna Junction and the Conductor of Coach No. 53 of Shramjivi Express) have neither filed written statement nor have contested the case. The case of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is that the complaint case filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant has neither cause of action against opposite parties nor locus standi or authority to make claim for the persons named in the complaint petition. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party and the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
4. Further case of the said opposite parties is that reserved berths in respect of which claim has been made were pre-occupied by rallyists of Mazdoor Sabha which was beyond the control of Railway Authorities. Though the Railway Authorities made efforts to vacate the unauthorised occupants, but the situation being law and order problem could not have been controlled by them. Memo was served on Government Railway Police for evacuation and they were also informed through public address system to attend to the train but the efforts of G.R.P. staff also proved to be futile in presence of Dys. S/G., R.P., R.P.F., C.T.I. Chief Justice of India, who was travelling by the said train, had to be adjusted any how in another Coupe No. 1451 with great dif
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
