Back
2008(2) CPR 332(NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Mr. K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member; Dr. P.D. Shenoy and Mr. S.K. Naik, Members
Union of India and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Shri Satyendra Nath and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos. 78 and 2430 of 2006
Decided on 22.4.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners in RP/78/2006 and for Respondents in RP/2430/2006:Shri S.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 in RP/78/2006 and for Petitioners in RP/2430/2006: In Person.
IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer fora cannot sit in judgment over decision of a competent Railways functionary about fitness of a coach.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act,1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b)—Railways—Deficiency in service—Purchase of two confirmed tickets of first class for journey from Kanyakumari to Agra Cantt. by complainant petitioners—Complainant’s case that when they came to board train they found that First class compartment was not attached to it and they were accommodated in 2nd class sleeper—Complaint alleging deficiency in service—Dismissed by District Forum—Appeal—Allowed by State commission awarding Rs. 10,000 as compensation—Revision petition—Affidavit of station master that first class coach in Him Sagar Express could not be attached on that date because head train maintainer of train placed unfit the coach for some technical reasons—Affidavit filed by complainant 1 in support of complaint was silent in regard to mechanical defect in first class coach to be attached to train—Station master being in-charge of Nagercoil Railway Station must be aware of reason of first class compartment not being attached to train—Consumer fora cannot sit in judgment over decision of a competent Railways functionary about fitness of a coach—No cogent evidence to show that another First class coach for being attached to Him Sagar express was available on that day—Hence OPs could not be held to be deficient in service in not providing complainant’s two berths in first class coach—Order of State Commission being unsustainable held liable to be set aside. (Para 5)
Result: Order accordingly.
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—I have perused the judgment prepared by Dr. P.D. Shenoy holding the Railways to be deficient in service and increasing the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the State Commission to Rs. 20,000/- and granting compensation of Rs. 500/- for not allowing refund by Bharatpur Railway Reservation Office, to the complainants in RP No. 2430 of 2006 and dismissing RP No. 78 of 2006 filed by the opposite parties against the order dated 19.9.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur. However, I differ with Dr. Shenoy as regards enhancing of compensation to Rs. 20,000/- after holding the opposite parties to be deficient in service and dismissing R.P. N. 78 of 2006. Reasons are recorded hereinafter.
2. Satyendra Nath and Maya Gupta-complainants(petitioners in RP No. 2430 of 2006) on 25.2.2002 had purchased two confirmed tickets of first class for journey from Kanyakumari to Agra Cantt in ‘Him Sagar Express’ on 29.3.2002. Complainants alleged that when they came to board the train on 29.3.2002, they found that the first class compartment was not attached to the train. They were accommodated in 2nd class sleeper. Journey in 2nd class sleeper caused inconvenience to them. It was further stated that amount of difference in fare between first and 2nd class sleeper was not refunded at Bharatpur and complainant No. 1 had thus to go to Agra Cantt. Reservation Office on 1.4.2002 to seek the refund by hiring a taxi for Rs. 500/-. This also caused inconvenience. Attributing deficiency in service, amount of Rs. 20,000/- was claimed as compensation for the inconvenience caused due to non-attachment of first class compartment in the train, Rs. 500/- towards taxi fare, Rs. 2,000 again by way of compensation and Rs. 500/- towards cost, totalling Rs. 23,000/- with interest. Opposite party Nos. 1 & 3(petitioners in RP No. 78 of 2006) contested the complaint by filing almost identical written versions. Purchase of two first class tickets by the complainants was not denied. However, it was pleaded that in special circumstances the Railway Administration has the right not to attach a reserved coach. Due to special reason first class compartment could not be attached to the train on 29.3.2002. Complainants were accommodated in 2nd class sleeper and also refunded the difference in fare. It was further stated that under the Rules, refund can be allowed either at the destination or origination station if claimed within 20 hrs. of the termination of journey. Amount of difference in fare was refunded by Agra Cantt. Reservation Office. It was emphatically denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of contesting opposite parties as alleged.
3. Complaint was dismissed by the District Forum by the order dated 25.3.2003. In appeal against Forum’s order by the complainants, the complainants were awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience suffered during journey from Kanyakumari to Agra Cantt. as a result of non-attachment of first class compartment in the train. Claim for reimbursement of taxi fare of Rs. 500/- etc. was, however, not considered by the State Commission.
4. We heard Shri S.P. Sharma for the opposite parties and complainant No. 1, a lawyer.
5. RP No. 78 of 2006 wherein challenge is to the award of Rs. 10,000/- granted by the State Commission, is being taken up first. In support of the written versions, the opposite parties filed the affidavits of C. Velappan and K. Satheesh Kumar. In his affidavit Shri Velappan averred that on 29.3.2002 he was working as Station Master at Nagercoil, Southern Railways, Tamil Nadu; first class coach in Him Sagar Express could not be attached on that date because the Head Train Maintainer of the train placed unfit the coach for some technical reasons. In his affidavit Shri Satheesh Kumar averred that he was working as T.T. in Him Sagar Express on 29.3.2002; he accommodated the complainants in coach No. S-1 in second class sleeper becaus
