IMPORTANT POINTRailways can not be made liablefor damages for delayed arrival of train at its destination.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 12 and 17 - Railway. Deficiency in service - Late arrival of train at its destination point Bombay by more than 3 hours and reached mid nightForum found that complainant had to face harassment and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/refund of super fast charges Appeal - No cogent material that complainant spent a lot of money and time due to late arrival of train - Delayed arrival was due to failure of engine - It could not be said to be deficiency in service - Even otherwise also Railways could not be made liable b.ecause of rules published in time table - Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.(Para 4)

Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER

S.C. Datta. President:- This appeal is at the instance of the railways and it is directed against order dated 27-2-1998 directing it to make refund of the super fast charge of Rs. 15/- to the complainant. The Railway was further directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony harassment to the complainant because of late running of train.

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that Mr. D. Singh a representa.tive• of the- complainant Society was sent to Pune for training and for that purpose a ticket was purchased on 16/10/1996 from New Koilaghat Reservation office on payment of Rs. 1540/- for journey on 14-11-1996 by Gitanjali express from Howrah to Mumbai. The fare of the ticket inc1 uded a sum of Rs. 15/- as Super Fast Charge. On 14-11-1996 Mr.

Singh boarded Coach No. A/2 of the said train and occupied the allotted berth. The train left Howrah Station 10 minutes behind the scheduled time of departure. It stopped in the midway due to engine failure. Ultimately. it reached Mumbai Station at 1 A.l\J. in the night of 16-11-1996 i.e. after more than 3 hours 30 minutes of scheduled time of arrival.

There was none to receive Mr. Singh and. as such he had to spend time and money to locate the address of his friends and he underwent mental tension and agony throughout the journey as well as on his arrival at Mumbai. The Complainant alleo ges negligence on the part of the Railways which resulted in the hardship and sufferings to Mr. Singh. .

Accordingly the complainant claim compensation as well as refund of Super Fa'st charge amounting to Rs. 15/-. .

3. The Forum noticed that there was defiCiency in service on tpe part of the Railways in not running the train on time which resulte'd in harassment and mental tension and agony throughout the journey as well as on arrival of the train at the odd hours of the night. Consequently the Forum directed to make refund of Super Fast charge and awarded compensation of ,Rs. 5,000/-. This finding of the forum has been challenged in appeal. It is contended on behalf of the Railways that claim for refund of Super Fast Charge cannot be entertained by the Forum in as much as the Railways Claims Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the claim for refund of fares or part thereof.

4. lt is not dispu ted that. the representative of i the "complainant Society traveled by Gitanjali Express and it arrived at the destination State far behind the scheduled time of arrival.

In fact it reached Mumbai Station at 1..

a.m. in the midnight. The Forum observed that for late arrival of the train at the destination the representative of the Society had suffered mental tension md agony in locating his friends. The l.,d. Counsel for the Appellant submits

that the punctuality of trains is not guaranteed. Admittedly the train ran late because of failure of engine. The Ld.

Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to an extract of time table No. 73 of 1996 published by the South Eastern Railway to show that punctuality oetrain is not guaranteed and the Railways will not be accountable for any loss of inconvenience caused to passengers for delay or .

rletention of themselves or their luggage. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has also challenged the award of compensation of Rs. 5.000/on the ground that there is no cogent material to show that the representative of the Complainaht Society had to spend a lot of time and money"'in locating his friends' address as no one was present to receive him at the Railway Station at the odd hours of night. He submits that the claim for compensation must be substantiated by sufficient evidell(~e as the cQmpensation his to be assessed not arbitrarily but on the basis of well accepted legal principle. He submits also that the complainant has not quantified the amount of compensation nor has it adduced any evidence to prove the loss actually suffered' by him. In this connection. he relies upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of Bharat T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document