State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern ... vs Ramesh Chandra Mishra on 4 September, 2008
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI FA no.276 of 2007 Against order dated 17.1.2000, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Deoghar, in Consumer Complaint no.13 of 1998. The Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta - Appellant Vrs. Ramesh Chandra Mishra - Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Before: Justice Gurusharan Sharma- President And Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy- Member
Judgment Justice Sharma: By impugned order dated 17.1.2000, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Deoghar directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,000.00 as compensation to the complainant-respondent.
2. The complainant had booked two sleeper berths for 13.11.1997 in Patliputra Express and was allotted berths 33 and 34 in Coach no.S-2 for train journey from Jasidih Railway Station to Ranchi alongwith his mentally sick son for treatment there. He was given appointment by the concerned doctor at Ranchi on 14.11.1997. When he came to Jasidih Railway Station to board the train, he was told that due to some mechanical defect, the coach wherein his two berths were reserved could not be attached with the train. He, therefore, could not undertake the journey on the scheduled date and missed doctors appointment and was debarred from getting treatment of his son at Ranchi. This deficiency on the part of Railways caused mental agony to him and he, therefore, calimed Rs.50,000.00 by way of compensation from Railways.
3. The Railway contested the complaint. According to their written statement and evidence brought on record, on 13.11.1997 the sleeper coach no.2, wherein complainants two berths were reserved became mechanically sick and could not be attached in 8621 Down, Patliputra Express. It was detached from the composition of the said train and the shortfall could not be substituted by augmentation of another suitable coach, as the same could not be made available. As such, latches or deficiency in service on the part of Railways could not be attributed, in such circumstance. The complainant applied for and then an there the entire amount/booking charge of the reservation ticket was refunded to him without any deduction.
4. In his evidence, the Junior Engineer of Railways posted at Ranchi stated that on 12.11.1997 in Haita-Patna Patliputra Express (8622 Up) Coach no. S-2 was not attached, because its main door was broken and as such for safety point of view was sent for repairs, otherwise, there was every possibility of accident. At that time, no spare coach was available at Hatia-Ranchi. Hence, there was no coach S-2 in 8621 Down Patna-Hatia Patliputra Express too on the next day i.e. on 13.11.1997.
5. According to the Railways the complainant did not approach the Railway authorities at Jasidih Railway Station for accommodation in the said train elsewhere. The complainant replied that none was available at Jasidih Railway Station at the relevant time. In this regard Sri Vinod Kumar Sinha, the Enquiry Assistant posted at Jasidih Railway Station deposed that on 13.11.1997 at the relevant time he was on duty, but nobody came seeking any aid or help from him.
6. Inspite of receiving appeal notice, after the records of appeal (FA no.104 of 2000) filed before Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Patna against the impugned order was received, on bifurcation of the erstwhile Bihar State and on establishment of Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ranchi, the complainant-respondent did not appear to contest the appeal. Mr.Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate once appeared and stated that he has been instructed to appear on behalf on the sole respondent, but neither Vakalatnama was filed nor anybody appeared thereafter.
7. Appellants Counsel submitted that non-attachment of a coach in the train due to mechanical defects would not amount to deficiency in service and in this regard placed reliance on a decision of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras, in General Manager, Southern Railway and others Vs. Manoharan (1993(3) CPR 590), wherein it was held that if the Railway authorities detached a coach for mechanical defect therein, it cant be said that there was deficiency of service on their part. The District Forum did not properly appreciate this aspect of the matter. Hence, the order allowing compensation to be paid to the complainant was set aside and Railways was directed to pay to the complainant the sleeper coach charges.
8. In our view, keeping in view the ratio of General Manager, Southern Railway and others (supra), we notice other materials on record, which constitute deficiency in service on the part of Railways. The said coach was detached one day earlier on 12.11.1997 from 8622 Up Hatia- Patna Patliputra Express at Hatia ( Ranchi). It may be true that at Hatia no spare coach was available on that day to be substituted therefor. But we find that the railway authorities did not inform Patna Junction Railway Station, from where the next day i.e. on 13.11.1997, the said train 8621 Down Patna-Hatia Patliputra Express was to leave for Hatia, so that prior arrangement could have possibly been made to attach a Coach as S-2 to accommodate the passengers, including the complainant, who had booked berths from before. As there was a margin of only 3-4 hours between the arrival of 8622 Up Patna Junction and departure of 8621 Down from there, unless there was prior information and request it was not possible at Patna Junction to arrange for a spare coach to be attached with the train as S-2. Hence, if the Hatia Railway Station Staff would have taken care and send message to Patna Junction on 12.11.1997 itself, a spare coach as S-2 on 13.11.1997 could have been managed. It was not a case, where suddenly a mechanical defect was detected in the coach and the said coach was detached on 13.11.1997. Railway authority at Hatia on 12.11.1997 failed to inform and request Patna Junction rail authorities for arranging a spare coach in 8621 Down on 13.11.1997. In our opinion, this was clear deficiency on the part of railway staff and for this the complainant deserved to be compensated. However, in facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount of compensation from Rs.10,000.00 to Rs.5,000.00, which would serve the ends of justice.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with aforesaid modification in the amount of compensation granted by Deoghar District Consumer Forum, in the impugned order.
The 4th September, 2008.
Ranchi.
Member President