Railway Authorities have a duty to provide reserved berths to passengers, and failure to do so constitutes deficiency in service.

Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.6.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Deoria in Complaint Case No. 444/2000. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainants purchased Reservation Tickets for journey from Deoria to Allahabad on 7.9.2000. When the complainants went to their reserved berths they found their berths already occupied by unauthorised passengers. They made complaint to G.R.P. and Station Master but they failed to get possession of their berths. The complainant prayed for Rs. 6,617/- on account of inconvenience caused to them.

The opposite party in its written version has alleged that on account of huge mob of political workers of Samajwadi Party theRailway Authorities as well as the force with them could not succeed in getting the berts vacated.

2. The District Forum after considering the facts of the case came to the conclusion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to complainants within two months.

3. Aggrieved against this judgment and order the opposite party has come in appeal.

We have heard the Counsel for the parties.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that Railway Authorities on receiving the complaint of the complainants made all possible efforts to get their reserved berths vacated, but on account of being uncontrolled situation, it was not possible for the appellant to provide the reserved berths to the complainants in an unusual and out of control situation. We are not convinced with this argument. It is duty of the Railway Authorities to see that the person gets seat which was reserved for him. This argument has no force that persons who had come in rally forcibly occupied the seats and on account of uncontrolled situation the appellant could not provide the berths to the complainants which were reserved for them. This is deficiency on behalf of appellant.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has further argued that it is a joint complaint which is not maintainable under law. We find that in the written statement no such plea was taken. When this plea was not taken in written statement the same cannot be allowed.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also argued that the compensation awarded by the District Forum of Rs. 3,000/- to complainants is excessive. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record has granted only Rs. 3,000/- out of the amount of Rs. 6,617/- claimed by the complainants. We find that this compensation cannot be said to be excessive when the complainants who have got their seats reserved, could not get their berths specially in the night and they have travelled throughout standing and the distance between two stations is 200 kms. It is very difficult for a person to travel 200 kms. by standing. We do not find that compensation of Rs. 3,000/- can be said to be higher. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- has already been paid by the appellant to the complainants in terms of interim stay order of this Commission. Therefore, only Rs. 1,000/- has to be paid by appellant besides cost of Rs. 2,000/- of this appeal to the complainants.

The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order passed by District Forum are confirmed.

The appellant will pay Rs. 1,000/- towards balance compensation awarded by District Forum and cost of Rs. 2,000/- of this appeal to the complainants.

Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order.

Leg copy as per rules be made available to the parties.

Appeal dismissed.

–