State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dharam Prakash Verma vs Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, ... on 8 May, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 215 / 2009
Sh. Dharam Prakash Verma
S/o Late Dr. S.N. Verma
R/o 7, Bengali Mohalla, Karnapur, Dehradun
......Appellant/ Complainant
Versus
Chairman, Railway Board
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
Through Station Superintendent
Railway Station, Dehradun
......Respondent / Opposite Party
Dr. R.K. Garg, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Naresh Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Respondent
Coram: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusumlata Sharma, Member
Dated: 08/05/2013
ORDER
(Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member):
The complainant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has filed the appeal against the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, thereby dismissing his consumer complaint No. 183 of 2008.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that on 16.10.2006 the complainant had booked four railway tickets for journey from Dehradun to Allahabad (Train No. 4114, date of journey 17.10.2006) and Allahabad to Rewa (Train No. 2427, date of journey 18.10.2006) and return ticket from Rewa to New Delhi and New Delhi to Dehradun. On 17.10.2006, when the complainant reached the Railway Station, Dehradun, he found that his ticket was not confirmed and his name was mentioned in waiting list. The complainant alleged that the TTE did not allot reserved berth to him in the train and instead of this the TTE forced him to travel in 2nd Class General 2 Coach, while the complainant had reserved "Sleeper Class Ticket" from Dehradun to Allahabad. According to the complainant, the train left the Dehradun station at 1:35 p.m. on 17.10.2006 and reached Allahabad at about 10:30 a.m. on 18.10.2006, about 2 hours late. The complainant has further alleged that the journey from Allahabad to Rewa was uncomfortable because in the train, so-called Superfast Train, there was no pantry car, so he did not get any food and the said Superfast Train stopped at many unscheduled small stations moving with the minimum speed of 32 kmph and covered the distance of 227 kms in 7:25 hours. According to the complainant, his return journey was also full of difficulties because he missed his train due to default of the opposite party. He had registered the complaint with TTE and Railway officials at S.S. Office, New Delhi, but all in vain. Instead of help, the officials of Railway misbehaved with him and had violated the rules. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum and sought the reliefs as mentioned in the consumer complaint. The District Forum, Dehradun, after an appreciation of the facts of the consumer complaint, dismissed the same vide its order dated 22.10.2009. Aggrieved by 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. Rule No. 115 of India Railway Conference Association, Coaching Tariff No. 26, Part I (Volume I) provides that-
"115. Punctuality of Trains- Railways do not guarantee the arrival or departure of trains at the times specified in the Time Tables nor will they be accountable for any loss or inconvenience which may arise to passengers from delays or detention to themselves or their luggage."
The Railway Department has specifically alleged in Para No. 1 of its written statement filed before the District Forum that the train number 2427 3 (Rewa to New Delhi) and train number 2055 (New Delhi to Dehradun) are not connected trains, as has been wrongly alleged by the complainant. It is also evident from the fact that the complainant had purchased two different tickets for his journey from Rewa to New Delhi and New Delhi to Dehradun. Thus, it could not be said that the above mentioned trains are connected with each other and can not be termed as connected trains.
5. The tickets purchased by the complainant for train No. 4114 (Dehradun to Allahabad) was waiting ticket and when the complainant found that his ticket has not been confirmed, he could have very well applied for cancellation of the tickets and took the refund of the charges after necessary deduction. In the present case, the complainant voluntarily under took his journey inspite of the fact that his name was mentioned in waiting list and his ticket was not confirmed, and, thus, he can not blame the railway authorities in this respect. The complainant has alleged that the trains through which he under took his journey did not reach the destination in time as was mentioned in the railways time table and in the ticket, which caused him loss and agony. In this respect we would like to state that the railway authorities have issued disclaimer that the trains can be late from the time shown in the railways time table. The exact words of the disclaimer are-
"Though all efforts have been made to make the schedule of services shown in this time table accurate, it may be notice that these are subject to change without notice. As such, these cannot be viewed as a part of contract between Northern, North Central and North Eastern Railways and the travelling public. Passengers are advised to contact the nearest enquiry office/Station Master to ascertain the correct timings. Though every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the Railway administration disclaims liability for any inconvenience, expense or damage resulting from error in this Time Table or from delayed/canceled Trains"4
6. Learned counsel for the appellant pressed into service the following judgments:-
i) Chairman, Railway Board vs. S. Bharath & Anr.; II (1995) CPJ 407 (New Delhi State Commission)
ii) R. Satyanarayanan vs. General Manager, Southern Railway; III (2004) CPJ 739 (Tamil Nadu State Commission)
iii) South Central Railway & Anr. vs. Vinod Sanghi & Anr.; II (2007) CPJ 50 (Andhra Pradesh State Commission)
7. In the case of Chairman, Railway Board vs. S. Bharath & Anr.; II (1995) CPJ 407 (New Delhi State Commission), the complainant travelled from Madras to New Delhi on 23.12.1991 by the train Tamil Nadu Express. The train reached New Delhi on 25.12.1991 at 16:50 hours instead of the scheduled time of 06:45 hours. It was held the delay was not properly explained and the complainant was entitled to refund of the difference of fare amount of passenger train and super fast train. The above decision dated 29.03.1995, as stated above, the Railway Authority has issued disclaimer in the year 2007, which is binding on all the passengers through the complainant could not get any advantage of the above decision.
8. In the case of R. Satyanarayanan vs. General Manager, Southern Railway; III (2004) CPJ 739 (Tamil Nadu State Commission) the complainant was unable to catch the connected train and no legitimate reason for delay was shown by the Railway Authorities. In the present case as has been stated above the train Nos. 2427 and 2055 were not connected trains. Thus, this case does not applied to the circumstances of the present case.
9. The case of South Central Railway & Anr. vs. Vinod Sanghi & Anr.; II (2007) CPJ 50 (Andhra Pradesh State Commission) also pertains to a 5 case of connecting trains. This apart in the said case, the complainant had boarded another train and purchased a fresh ticket.
10. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions cannot help the appellant in justifying that the respondent had made any deficiency in service.
11. The District Forum has discussed all the facts of the case and has passed a well discussed and reasoned order which does not call for any interference.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MRS. KUSUMLATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT)