Chairman, Railway Board vs S. BHARATH

THIS appeal has been filed by the OP against the order of the District Forum (D.F.) dated 11-1-93.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that the complainants travelled from Madras to Delhi on 23.12.91 by Tamilnadu Express, which leaves Madras at 21.00 hours. It left Madras at 22.20 hours. It is alleged that on 24.12.91 it was detained somewhere in the forest area for about seven hours i.e. from 15.00 hours to 22.00 hours without any reasonable cause. It is further pleaded that on 24.12.91 no evening tea and dinner was served to the passengers causing unbearable agony to them. A complaint was lodged at Amla Station by them but inspite of that no proper arrangements for food were made for that night and for the next day. The train reached Delhi on 25.12.91 at 16.50 hours instead of the scheduled time of 06.45 hours.

It is next pleaded that the train was a superfast train for which they had paid higher charges and in few of the late arrival of the train by more than nine hours they were entitled to get the refund of the extra charges paid for that train. They also claimed damages for harassment and inconvenience.

THE complaint was contested by the OP. In their written statement it is stated by them that the delay in departure of the train from Madras Central was due to the ''rail fracture''. THE train was further delayed near Amla Station due to failure of the electric locomotive engine. Both the circumstances were unforeseen circumstances and beyond the control of the Railway Administration. It is further stated by them that it was incorrect that no evening tea or dinner was served on 24.12.91. The train was a fully vestibuled train with the pantry car and that coffee, Vadas, Dosas, Omelette etc. were sold on the evening of 24.12.91 to the passengers who wanted these items. At Amla Station there is a recovery room and the platform has vending facilities. Upma, Vadas and Omelette in large quantity were sold to the passengers there. Similarly, on the next day Omelette, butter, bread etc. was served in lieu of lunch as the train was running out of schedule.

THE learned District Forum directed to OP to refund the difference in the fare of the passenger train and the superfast train to the complainant and pay to them Rs. 250/- each as damages for inconvenience and harassment. THE OP has come up in appeal to the Commission. The main question that arises for determination is, whether there were sufficient reasons for delaying the train for about 9 hours. The delay at Madras Station is stated to be due to the rail fracture. Nothing has been brought on the record at what time the rail fracture was detected and how and when it was repaired. The affidavit of Mr. M.S. Bhatt, Assistant Electrical Engineer does not even mention about the said defect. The fact was within the knowledge of the OP and it was their duty to have explained the same to the Commission. Consequently, it cannot be held that the OP appellant has sufficiently explained the delay in starting the train at Madras for one hour and twenty minutes. Now it is to be determined why the train was delayed between Multai and Jaulkhera. It is stated in the affidavit of Mr. Bhat that the engine went out of order at 17.28 hours and it was replaced by another engine at 20.10 hours. Thus, it took them about three hours to replace the engine. It has not been explained from what distance the replacement was brought. It was the duty of the appellant to have produced the records to prove that the engine could not be replaced before that time so that the Court could examine the same. However, it has not been done. Thus, an adverse inference is to be drawn against him. It was also the duty of the appellant to have brought to the notice of the Commission as to why the engine of the train went out of the order. This has also not been done.

IT is further stated in the affidavit of Mr. Bhatt, that the train had to be detained for about two hours because the other trains were to be given preference. Tamilnadu Express was a superfast train. IT has not been explained which trains had been given preference to that train. No rules or instructions have been produced, giving the circumstances in which preference is given to a train over a superfast long distance train which is already running late. The details of the trains, which have been given preference have also not been given. In these circumstances it cannot be held that the delay of these two hours was justified.

IT is now to be seen, whether proper arrangements had been made for the food of the passengers. IT cannot be denied that the distance between Madras and Delhi is very long and in normal course the train would have taken about 35 hours to reach New Delhi. Therefore, it was expected from the appellant to have made proper arrangements for the food etc. of the passengers. A complaint is alleged to have been made by the complainant at Amla Station in this regard. IT was the duty of the OP to haye produced that complaint. However, it has not been done by them. An affidavit of S. Mohd. Khadar, Catering Supervisor, Tamilnadu Express, has been filed. He has stated therein that on 24.12.91 in the evening tea and snacks which included Masala Vada, Coffee, Omelette & Rava Upma were served to the passengers. However, it has not been stated that arrangements for the dinner had been made by them. The pleas taken by the appellant in the written statement are not fully supported by the affidavit. Therefore, it is not of much value. In the train in addition to the adults various children were also travelling. On account of train being late and proper meals not being available it is but natural that one suffers mental pain and agony. It is common knowledge that the additional charges are taken by the Railway from the passengers travelling by the super fast trains. In case, trains are delayed for long hours and the delay has not been properly explained that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Railway and therefore, it is bound to refund the excess charges. We find no fault with the order of the Forum when they directed the OP- appellant to refund the excess charges and pay Rs. 250/- as damages for mental harassment and pain. It is further noteworthy that inspite of allowing the complaint no cost of litigation was given by the D.F. to the complainants. It appears that the amount of Rs. 250/- also includes the cost of litigation though it is not specifically mentioned in the order.

Before parting with the order, a contention of the Counsel for the appellant may be noticed. It is that respondents did not file any evidence to support their complaint and therefore, it could not be said that the allegations therein stand proved. We do not find any substance in the contention. The important facts in the complaint have been admitted by the appel lant and thereafter the onus shifted on him to explain the delay and prove that proper arrangements for food had been made by them. A complaint had also been lodged by the respondents at Amla Station regarding food. It was his duty to have produced the same. Therefore, merely because no affidavit has been filed by the respondents, it cannot be held that their case does not stand established.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the appeal. However, as no one appeared on behalf of the respondent, therefore, we make no order as to costs of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.