DAINIK RAIL YATRI SANGH (REGD.) vs General Manager, Northern Railway

THE delay in filing the Respondent''s version is condoned.

ACCORDING to the complainant Dainik Rail Yatri Sangh during the months of August, September and October, 1990 the Northern Railway cancelled its train services (Shuttle) on DUK section for 5 days in August, for 7 days in September and October, 1990 which adversely affected the movement of 25,000 daily train passengers travelling on season tickets. ACCORDING to the complainant Sangh, the members of the Sangh are daily train passengers who travel regularly on season tickets between Delhi and certain stations on DUK Sections of the Northern Railway. The complainant Sangh has claimed damages from the Union Government of Rs. 48.60 lakhs including refund of fare for 10 working days included in the season tickets (Rs. 5 lakhs) and inconvenience caused to the passengers (Rs. 10 lakhs) and damages for having to incur extra expenditure on travelling by other modes of transport (Rs. 30 lakhs). During the hearing the complainant submitted written arguments and certain documents which have been taken on record.

The Respondent Union of India has explained that due to the agitation against the acceptance of the recommendations contained in the report of the Mandal Commission on reservation of jobs etc., there were disturbances involving violence constituting a serious law and order problem. The public property/installations owned by the State became the target of attack by miscreants/agitators; in particular the public utility services became highly vulnerable to attacks and consequent damage, hi fact, according to the counter filed by the Indian Railways, the immoveable as well as movable properties of Indian Railways system at places were extensively damaged. To safeguard the rolling stock and premises owned by railway against risks of attack and destruction by public enemies, it was prudent to suspend the rail services and thereby to minimize the loss to national property at the hands of vandals, arsonists and agitators.

ACCORDING to the Counsel for the Respondent the complaint appeared to be in the nature of public interest litigation on behalf of an un-specified number of persons. The Consumer Forum can not entertain such complaints as the complaints are not consumers specific and the persons claimed on whose behalf relief is trains remain unidentified. At the hearing the Complainant maintained that certain express trains continued to be run, and if so, it should have been possible at least to run some suburban services for season ticket holders on DUK Section of Northern Railway.

THE Commission pointed out to the Complainant that he had not produced any authority, to show that the railways were bound to run all train services under all circumstances and had no power to suspend any service either on operational considerations or on considerations of security, law and order. Again while it might have been possible to provide security for running of a limited number of mail and express trains with the deployment of security forces for maintenance of law and order and dealing with the agitation, the security force might not be available for safeguarding the branch lines services or ordinary passenger services. More importantly the Commission pointed out that the running of train services also could expose the passengers to grave risk to their lives and limbs and unless the railways were in a position to provide security and safeguard the passengers, it would have been imprudent to continue to run all the services during the period of disturbances. THE complainants were unable to furnish any satisfactory replies to their queries or to clarify as to how there could be said to have been any negligence on the part of the Respondent in suspending the train services. The Union of India has also pointed out that in actual fact the train services were totally suspended for three days only and that the season tickets fare is highly concessional and season ticket holders can make any number of journey to and fro on the tickets. It was also open to the complainants to travel by other non-shuttle trains after purchasing regular tickets. After considering all the facts of the case, we are satisfied that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Northern Railway and that it had authority to suspend the train services whenever it considered necessary on considerations of safety etc. and that they were also fully justified in this case in suspending the train services in DUK Sections of Northern Railway. The maintenance of mail/express trains on trunk routes might have been found expethent to ensure that the agitationists do not succeed in disrupting those services the operation of which is essential to the national economy. The Commission feels that the complainant should have appreciated the difficulties of the Railway Administration and the circumstances in which they had to suspend the services instead of raising a complaint against the respondent Union of India.

WE note from the documents filed at the hearing that the District Forum Delhi in Harish Kumar Sharma v. C.E.S. (Northern Railway) on the same facts and on the identical cause of action had ordered on 21.8.91 refund of fare on pro rata basis for 11 days and refund was granted by the Opposite Party here. In the light of what we have said earlier, this decision does not appear to us to be correct

THE complaint is dismissed. No costs. Complaint Dismissed.