Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President; Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao,
Mr. B.K. Taimni & Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Members
SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY—Petitioner
versus
YESHWANT TIWARI—Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1065 of 2002—Decided on 21.2.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kaviraj Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Railway's obligation to provide essential facilities to passengers and take prompt action to address issues affecting passenger comfort and convenience.
Headnote:
Water Facility - Railway Complaint - The court upheld the decision of the lower forums, ruling in favor of the complainants and dismissing the revision petition filed by the Railway. The Railway failed to provide water facility in the reserved compartment, resulting in inconvenience to the passengers, and did not take adequate measures to address the issue.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant and his family traveled in a reserved compartment of the Railway where the water facility in the toilet was not available due to a broken pipe, causing inconvenience, especially in the month of May. Despite complaints, the Railway did not repair the broken pipe.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the decision of the lower forums, ruling in favor of the complainants and dismissing the revision petition filed by the Railway.
Issues: Complaint against the Railway for lack of water facility in the reserved compartment, failure to address the issue, and the resulting inconvenience to the passengers.
Ratio Decidendi: The Railway was required to ensure the availability of water in the train, and the court found that the Railway did not take adequate measures to address the broken pipe issue, leading to inconvenience for the passengers.
Final Decision: The revision petition filed by the Railway was dismissed, and the decision of the lower forums in favor of the complainants was upheld.
Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa, President—It is the Railway which has filed this petition and was opposite party before the District Forum.
2. Complaint against the Railway was that when the complainant No. 1 with his family travelled in the reserved compartment of Railway, water was not available in the toilet as the water pipe had broken resulting that there was no facility of water at all. Complainant No. 1 said he and his family suffered on that account it being the month of May. In spite of complaints nothing was done to repair the broken pipe. Other passengers had also complained. Facts alleged by the complainants in the complaint were not disputed by the Railway by giving particulars except in its written version it had mainly denied whatever the complainants said. Railway did not file any evidence of the train attendant or any other person to rebut the evidence led by the complainant. District Forum held in favour of the complainants and directed Railway to pay Rs. 55,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost.
3. Railway went in appeal to the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum except that the compensation was reduced from Rs. 55,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. Still feeling aggrieved, Railway has come before us. There is a concurrent finding against the Railway. Moreover, it has not been denied that Railway was required to see that water was available in the train. We do not find it is a fit cause for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed.
Revision Petition dismissed.
