Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—The two complaint cases bearing No. 168/2004 (RBT No. 590/2004) and 196/2004 (RBT No. 591/2004) involving similar questions of facts have been decided by a common judgment and order dated 14.12.2004 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum). The main judgment has been delivered in Complaint Case No. 168/2004 (RBT No. 590/2004), Sh. Jasbir Singh v. The Divisional Railway Manager/ Commercial, Southern Railway & Others. We also propose to decide these two appeals by this judgment, which is being delivered in the said main case of Shri Jasbir Singh v. The Divisional Railway Manager/Commercial, Southern Railway & Others.

2. The District Forum upheld the contentions of the respondents/complainants that by not accommodating the complainants in an additional 2nd A.C. Tier Coach in Rajdhani Express No. 2431 from Trivandrum to New Delhi when the complainants had waiting list Nos. 2 to 5, the respondents/O.Ps. committed deficiency in service and as a result of which the complainant Shri Jasbir Singh had to seek reservation in another train from Ernakulam to New Delhi but again he found himself on a waiting list and despite his representation for releasing DRM’s quota, the same was denied to him and he was compelled to return to Chandigarh by air after spending a sum of Rs. 60,000/- for four passengers.

3. The appellants/O.Ps. contested the complaint case mainly on the ground that a special coach of Two tier AC was attached to the Rajdhani Express originating from Trivandrum on 1.1.2004 to accommodate VVIPs/VIPs and no person from the waiting list for the train was adjusted or accommodated in the aforesaid additional/special coach and, consequently, the complainants are not justified in alleging any deficiency in service on the part of appellants/O.Ps.

4. The plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction was also raised on the ground that the train originated from Ernakulam in the State of Kerala and the destination station was New Delhi and, as such, the District Forum at Chandigarh had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. Apart from this, it was contended that the Railways cannot be burdened with the costs of travel by air, which was the personal decision of the complainant and he could get reservation on the train to travel up to New Delhi.

5. On merit, the allegations made in the complaint were denied. It was alleged that the appellants/O.Ps. were justified in not adjusting/accommodating the complainant and his family members in the special coach aforesaid. The District Forum considered the evidence led before it by the complainant as well as by the O.Ps. and came to the conclusion that the defence plea about the special coach accommodated only VVIPs/VIPs was not correct as in the additional coach having 50 berths, the kith and kin of the railway staff were also accommodated besides other passengers outside waiting list instead of adjusting and accommodating the persons from the waiting list prepared for the aforesaid train. It was held that this act/omission on the part of the O.Ps. amounted to deficiency in service and since the respondent/complainant failed to secure a confirmed reservation on the same and since he had to return to Chandigarh to resume his duties, he was justified in travelling by air from Ernakulam to New Delhi and this happened because of the deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/O.Ps. who were liable to compensate him for the aforesaid amount besides the amount of Rs. 60,000/- spent over the air tickets.

6. The District Forum allowed to the respondent/complainant Shri Jasbir Singh of Complaint Case No. 168/2004 (RBT No. 590/2004) a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs. 4,000/- for boarding and lodging. A total amount ordered to be compensated Rs. 84,000/-. The District Forum also allowed interest on the railway fare of Rs. 13,280/- and further al