State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vijay Tripathi vs Divisional Manager, Northern Railway, ... on 23 September, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 32 / 2013
Sh. Vijay Tripathi S/o Sh. V.N. Tripathi
R/o 120/1, Krishan Nagar, Ext., Dehradun
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. Divisional Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad, U.P.
2. Station Master / Superintendent, Northern Railway, Dehradun, U.K.
......Respondents / Opposite Parties
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Manoj Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusumlata Sharma, Member
Dated: 23/09/2013
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 105 of 2012. Vide its order, the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite parties and has directed the opposite parties to refund the difference of fare between Second A.C. Class and Sleeper Class to the complainant within a month from the date of the order.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant - Sh. Vijay Tripathi booked an online railway e-ticket on 16.02.2012 for a journey from Dehradun to Kanpur on 19.02.2012 by train No. 14114 / Link Express in A.C. II Class against the ticket bearing P.N.R. No. 2661191290. On the date of journey, when the complainant reached Dehradun Railway Station, he found that there was no A.C. II Class and he was asked to travel in 2 sleeper class. It was winter season and he was not carrying with him any bedding or blanket because bedding and blanket is provided in A.C. II class. As such, he travelled in sleeper class without any blanket in the cold night and fell ill for two-three days. The complainant has alleged that the Railway Administration should have informed him in time that the A.C. Class was not being attached on 19.02.2012 either on his mobile number, which was registered with e-ticket or on his e-mail address. It has also been alleged that since the ticket was a confirmed one, the Railway Administration should have arranged another coach either at Dehradun or atleast after two-three stations and should have accommodated him in A.C. II Class Coach. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 23.01.2013. Not satisfied with the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that not to make arrangement of A.C. II Class Coach and not providing a seat / berth in A.C. II Class Coach inspite of the fact that the appellant was holding confirmed ticket for that class, amounts to deficiency in service and the respondents viz. Divisional Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad, U.P. and Station Master / Superintendent, Northern Railway, Dehradun, U.K. are liable to compensate the appellant for the inconvenience caused to him by travelling in sleeper class and for mental & physical agony suffered by him. In support of his contention, he cited the following decisions:-
(1) Union of India & Ors. vs. Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal; 2008 (4) CPR 448 (NC) (2) Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta vs. Ramesh Chandra Mishra; IV (2008) CPJ 343 (Jharkahnd State Commission) 3 (3) Divisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada Division & Ors.
vs. B.V. Raghavaiah Chowdary; 1999 (3) CPR 425 (Andhra Pradesh State Commission) (4) The Commercial Manager, E. Railway vs. Sri Girdharilal Saraf; 2004 (1) CPR 366 (West Bengal State Commission) (5) Union of India & Ors. vs. K.K. Shukla & Ors.; 2002 (1) CPR 77 (NC) (6) Union Government of India vs. Subhash Chand Jasuja; IV (2006) CPJ 311 (NC)
5. The learned counsel submitted that the facts of all these cases are similar to instant case and the Hon'ble National Commission and the respective State Commissions have awarded and / or confirmed the orders of the lower Fora for awarding adequate compensation to the complainants
- ticket holders. The District Forum has, thus, made a gross legal error by ignoring the legal aspect of the case and allowing the consumer complaint only to the extent that difference of fare between the A.C. II Class and Sleeper Class has been awarded to the complainant.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted the written arguments as well as oral submissions, countering the arguments placed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that as per Northern Railways' Notification No. RLRA - 48/2011 dated 14.02.2012, one first A.C. cum second A.C. Coach was to be attached in train No. 14113 / 14114 w.e.f. 18.02.2012 for Allahabad to Dehradun. The said coach did not come on the appointed date and, therefore, the passengers, who had been issued confirmed / RAC / Wait Listed tickets for the said coach were provided alternate accommodation in Sleeper Class. Information to this effect was provided to the passengers by announcement on Public Address System, by enquiry clerks at the Enquiry Counter and through Reservation Chart pasted on the Notice Board. The learned counsel also submitted that the passengers were also informed that if they chose not to avail the alternate arrangement, then they would be refunded full amount of the fare and if they accepted to travel in Sleeper Class, then they would be refunded the difference of fare between Second A.C. Class and Sleeper 4 Class. Since the appellant opted on his own volition to travel in Sleeper Class, he was issued a refund memo by the T.T.E. during the journey and was asked to collect the amount on the presentation of the refund memo at the Disembarking Station. The appellant, for the reasons best known to him, did not collect the amount at Kanpur Railway Station. However, the learned counsel submitted that the respondents are prepared to refund the said amount even on today.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that so far as the legal aspect of the case is concerned, Section 15 of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 bars a court or authority to exercise any jurisdiction powers or authority in relation to matters referred to in sub-Sections (1) and (1-A) of Section 13. He cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when special remedy is provided under Statute, then remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable and the complainant is required to approach the Authority, which has been referred by the Statute. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited a decision of Chhattisgarh State Commission in the case of Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.C.R. vs. Vikas Agarwal; 2013 (1) CPR 199 (Chhatt.)
8. We considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The arguments placed by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to bar of jurisdiction are not relevant in context of the instant case. The instant case does not involve a dispute with regard to refund of railway fare, but it pertains to allegations made by the appellant against the respondents for committing deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice and adjudication of such disputes is well within the scope of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, the District Forum has held that the respondents have not made any deficiency in service. The appellant, being not satisfied with the impugned judgment and order, has emphasized 5 on the fact that the respondents should have communicated to him well in time that A.C. II Class Coach was not available in the train. The appellant could know that the coach was not available only when he reached the railway station. He had not made adequate and proper arrangement for travelling in a sleeper class in winter night and it caused him a great inconvenience and he suffered a lot of mental and physical agony, for which he had demanded the adequate compensation from the respondents. We considered this aspect of the case, but we are of the view that the respondents can be held deficient in providing satisfactory service only when the circumstances are within their control and they can manage it. In the instant case, it appears that prior to 18.02.2012, there was no provision for A.C. I and A.C. II Class Coaches and these were to be attached w.e.f. 18.02.2012 in pursuance of the Northern Railway's Notification dated 14.02.2012, as referred by the learned counsel for the respondents. So, it appears that the appellant was one of those lucky passengers who were going to avail this facility for the first time in Link Express. But, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the Railway Administration could not attach the A.C. I and A.C. II Class Coach on 18.02.2012 from Allahabad in the said train. It was only when the train reached Dehradun on 19.02.2012, the Railway Authorities could know that the proposed A.C. I and A.C. II Class Coaches were not attached and, thus, an exigency had arisen as to how to accommodate the passengers holding confirmed / RAC tickets for A.C. I and A.C. II Class Coaches. We should understand the problem of the Railway Administration. Any sensible person would understand that there is shortage of additional coaches and additional A.C. I and A.C. II Class Coaches cannot be managed easily. So, it was probably beyond the control of the Railway Administration to manage an additional A.C. II Class Coach for the passengers, who were holding valid and confirmed tickets for that class. It appears, as the circumstances speak that the Railway Administration could do its best, by arranging an additional sleeper coach S-8 for such passengers and made announcement in this regard through Public Address System, Enquiry Counter and by putting a note on the 6 reservation chart pasted on notice board. In other words, the respondents did their best in exigency which had arisen under these circumstances. On this basis, the respondents have pleaded that they have not committed any deficiency in service and we also agree to it. However, we can understand the plight of such passengers, and the appellant is one of them, for whom it was necessary to travel on that day and it was not possible for him to postpone the journey to some other day. Generally, such passengers who get their tickets booked in A.C. Coaches, remain in the impression that bedding would be provided by the Railways and they need not make arrangement for the same. In the instant case, the passengers, including the appellant who had to opt to travel in Non-A.C./ Sleeper Class due to urgency of his work, had to spend the night, that too in winter, without proper bedding and to this extent, we can appreciate that the appellant had performed his journey upto Kanpur in great inconvenience. So, in such cases, the Railway Administration must provide atleast the bedding facility to such passengers as a token of compensation for the inconvenience caused to such passengers apart from refunding the difference of fare. In the instant case, the respondents could not do so, perhaps because there was no such provision under the Railway Act / Rules or in absence of any guidelines issued by the Railway Administration in this regard. Though this point has not been raised by the appellant, but we are of the view that it is necessary to provide such facilities to the passengers who opt to travel in a lower class due to urgency of their work. Since, this point has not been raised by the appellant and we understand that the respondents had, perhaps, not provided the bedding because of the fact that sleeper class passengers are not entitled to it, we cannot hold respondents deficient in providing quality service to its passengers / consumers. But, through this judgment, we advise the Railway Authorities that necessary guidelines / directions should be issued to its officers for providing the facility of bedding, if the passengers opt to travel in Non-A.C. / Sleeper Class in such exigencies. We hope that the respondents would bring the observations made by this Commission in this judgment to the notice of the railway authorities, who 7 are competent to take decisions and issue directions in this regard.
9. We also went through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that the respondents have been deficient in service and are liable to pay compensation, but we are of the view that the facts of the cited cases are different from the facts of the instant case and these decisions cannot help the appellant. In the case of "Sh. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal" (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission had dismissed the revision petition mainly because it was barred by time. In the case of "K.K. Shukla" (supra), the berths reserved by the four complainants were occupied by unauthorized person and the Railway Authorities could not give a plausible explanation as to why the complainants were not provided to sit on their reserved berths. In the said case, the unauthorized persons had not only occupied the complainant's berths, but the complainants were thrown out of the coach by those occupants and the Railway Authorities failed to take any action against them. So the facts of this case are also quite different. Similarly, in rest of the decisions of the State Commissions of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal, the facts of the cases are different from the instant one.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 105 of 2012 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. KUSUMLATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)