B Vaidyan Athan Secretary Consumer Protection Council Rourkela vs GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY

THIS Original Petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Shri B. Vaidyanathan, Secretary, Consumer Protection Council.. Rourkela against the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras is based on these facts.

THE complainant claims to be a consumer utilising the services of Train No. 8689/ 8690 Alleppy Bokaro/Tata Express as a bona fide passenger, for visiting Madras, which is his native place. It is alleged that the only train links between Madras and Rourkela established first through Madras -Tata Nagar Express, then through Bokaro/Tata -Madras Express and presently extended to Allepy as Allepy Bokarao Express were all along, either originating at Madras Central or passing through Madras Central. The grievance is that after more than decades of running a train from or through Madras Central the opposite party has taken a decision to divert the said Bokaro /Tata -Allepy Express (Nos. 8689/8690) via Perambur instead of touching Madras Central since 1.7.94. The complainant then compares in his complaint the situation, location, covered platform, retiring room, cafeteria, etc., facilities available at Madras Central and the location of that at Perambur to highlight the difficulties that are being experienced by the complainant and the other consumers. The submission is that prejudicial treatment is meted out to train Nos. 8689/8690 Bokaro/Tata -Allepy Express and hence to its passengers boarding at Madras Central amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant claims the following reliefs : 1. To restore the original route to the train Nos. 8689/8690 AlleppyBokaro/Tata Express via Madras Central.

To pay all the bona fide passengers including the complainant, who travelled by 8689/8690 Alleppy -Bokaro/ Tata Express since 1.7.94 and alighted or boarded at Perambur, a sum of Rs. 50/ - alongwith 18% interest, from the date of journey to the actual date of payment, estimated at over Rs. 40 lakhs; (estimated loss inflicted Rs. 39 lakhs, as mentioned at 10.0 + 18% interest).

To pay the consumer Welfare Fund the balance amount which cannot be paid to the aggrieved passengers due to non -availability of their correct address; and

To pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - towards cost.

On being noticed the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer and the present complaint is not within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits it is pleaded that the management of the traffic passenger trains in Madras Area of which Madras Central forms a part is achieved by Railways based on relevant facts and considerations. It is submitted : ''It is stated that the congestion at Madras Central resulting in dislocation/delay to the train services. That in addition the trains passing through Madras Central have to undergo reversal of locomotives as the platforms are on dead ends which results in longer hall and occupancy of platforms for longer period. With the running of longer trains i.e. with coaches between 18 to 24 instead of 10 to 17 as it has become necessary to extend the length of the platforms. That the remodelling work has been taken up to achieve passenger convenience and this has resulted in reduction of availability of platforms from 13 to 9. It was further decided to progressively re -route the trains passing through Madras Central so as to have better dispersal facilities for passengers travelling in terminating trains. That there is also problem of watering the compartments for which capacity of Madras Central Could not be augmented. That more through trains are planned to be routed via Perambur instead of Madras Central depending upon operational exigencies.''

This Commission has already taken the view that the expression ''service'' contained in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act specifically includes within its scope the provisions of facilities in connection with transport. The Railway Administration is providing transport facilities to passengers for consideration paid by them by way of fare, levied for the ticket. The facilities of transportation by rail provided by the Railway Administration is a service rendered for consideration as defined in the Act. But the present complaint does not pertain to any deficiency in the rendering of the service by Railway Administration. It challenges the commercial decision of the Railway Administration to divert the said train via Perambur, instead of touching Madras Central since 1.7.94. It is clear that before taking decision of diverting the through train to run viz. Perambur, various pros and cons were considered including the operational feasibility. The Railway Administration has highlighted the reasons for re -routing and objectives to be achieved. In our view the management of the Traffic is within the province of the Railway Administration and cannot be a subject matter of consumer dispute before the Redressal Forums. There is no hiring of service for consideration in the decision of the management of the Traffic by the Railway Administration. The complaint fails on this short ground and is dismissed with no order as to costs.