Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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.

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 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 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 are competent to take decisions and issue directions in this regard.