The principle of joinder of causes of action to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the settled principle regarding conventional amount in awarding compensation.

Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh, President—By consent of the learned Advocates this appeal is taken up for final disposal today.

2. This appeal arises from impugned order dated 28th April, 2000 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City in Complaint No. 1298/1998. Impugned order reads as under :

“This complaint is hereby allowed. The opponents Railway Authorities, (1) The Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Baroda and (2) The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai are jointly and severally ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) to the complainant and his family members as compensation of mental agony, torture, harassment, etc. and further the opponents are ordered to pay jointly and severally Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand) for cost of this litigation. The said ordered amount be paid to the complainant on behalf of his family members and the awarded amount is not of each family members. It is a collective compensation and opponents are hereby directed to comply jointly and severally the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.”

3. The appellants herein are the original opposite parties and the respondent herein is the original complainant. They are referred to as such in this order.

4. The complainant approached the learned City Forum with the grievance that he and the members of his family travelled by Rajkot-Cochin Express from Ahmedabad to Salem on 21.10.1996 by First Class (Coupe), but they were deprived of the usual service of electricity in the entire compartment leaving them with great deal of hardship as per the particulars set out in the complaint. The members of his family included 2 senior citizens. They accordingly suffered total discomfort and mental torture during the whole of their travel. The complainant’s grievance with regard to his second journey was in train No. 6046 Navjivan Express from Chennai to Ahmedabad on 21.11.1997 by second class reserved coach. During this journey the passengers being the family members of the complainant faced deficiency in service with regard to want of water supply in the four latrines located in the compartment. They have described the extent of hardship and mental torture they suffered during this travel. The complainant also referred to the experiences which he had with the concerned staff of the Railways. The complainant, therefore, claimed Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation.

5. The opposite parties resisted the claim inter alia alleging that the complaint suffered from the vice mis-joinder of necessary parties and causes of action, that the complainant did not lodge any complaint as per the allegations made in the complaint during the course of journey, that the primary maintenance of the trains in question going to Chennai was under the control of Southern Railway and, therefore, Western Railways would not be answerable for the claim in the complaint and that the complaint was barred by limitation.

6. The learned Forum did not accept the objections and held that the complainant established the grievances faced by him in the complaint and that the complainant did make grievances during the course of the respective journey without any compliance by the concerned staff of the concerned Railways and that the Railway Administration was responsible for deficiency in service in respect of the journeys undertaken by the complainant as aforesaid. The learned Forum has dealt with the respective grievances of the complainant at length and has awarded Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation and Rs. 3,000/- by way of cost in favour of the complainant.

7. Before this Commission, it has been submitted that the complaint should have been dismissed on the ground that there appeared misjoinder of causes of action. Now it is not in dispute before this Commission that the complainant had undertaken two different journeys at two different points of time. It is also not in dispute that the complainant expe