General Manager Southern Railways Madras vs N Prabaharan

THESE are two cross appeals against the Order of the State Commission of Tamil Nadu at Madras in Complaint Petition No. 34 of 1991. The reliefs granted read as follows: (1) The railway administration shall provide cushion seats in all the first class compartments in the Broad Gauge suburban electric trains plying between Madras Central and Gummidipoondi within three months from today. (2) The railway administration shall take effective and stringent steps to prevent the occupation of first class compartments in the BG suburban electric trains by second class passengers and ticketless travellers. (3) The Southern Railways shall not allow police dogs to be carried in the passenger compartments of the BG suburban electric trains and particularly in the first class compartments of the said trains.''

The Southern Railways have appealed against such directions whereas the Complainant Shri Prabaharan, has filed an appeal reiterating his claim for compensation.

THE facts of the case in short are mat Shri Prabaharan, appellant in First Appeal No. 172 of 1991, is a small scale industrialist who is a regular traveller by the 1st Class, holding a season ticket from Madras Central Station to Ponneri by the Broad Gauge Suburban Electric Train plying between Madras Central and Gummidipoondi. He had complained of certain deficiencies in services of the Southern Railways, appellant in First Appeal No. 118 of 1991. Briefly stated, the deficiencies complained are as follows: (a) The Southern Railways fails to provide all cushioned seats in 1st Class compartments. Some seats are cushioned, others are not. (b) The Southern Railways fails to check unauthorised persons from entering and occupying 1st class compartments inconveniencing the genuine 1st Class passengers. (c) The Southern Railways allows police dogs to be carried in the 1st Class compartments, much to the discomfort of the passengers travelling therein. (d) The Southern Railways hikes up the fares of 1st Class travel without providing the necessary facilities and comforts of the same thereby indulging in unfair trade practice. The State Commission, after due examination found that Shri Prabaharan was a regular traveller of the above mentioned train, and that most of the allegations made by him were true: (a) The State commission while stating that lack of cushioned seats in 1st Class compartments in the broad gauge section of the Southern Railways, was a deficiency in service, did not award any compensation to the complainant, but directed the Southern Railways to provide cushioned seats in all 1st Class compartments in Broad Gauge suburban electric trains. At the final hearing of both the appeals before the National Commission two officers of the Southern Railways, Shri V. Kumaran, Chief Commercial Superintendent/Passenger Reservation System, Southern Railways, Madras -3 and Shri V. Balakrishnan, Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer/Traction Rolling Stock, Southern Railways, Madras -3, appeared and the former confirmed that according to R.D.S.O. specifications, 1st Class compartments are supposed to have cushioned seats, but because of vandalism these cushions were torn, and therefore some seats were without cushions. This, however, does not explain the total absence of cushions in the First Class compartments of the Broad Gauge Sub -urban trains on the Southern Railway. We hold that as the Railways have charged the passengers 1st Class fare, and the First Class compartments ought to have cushioned seats as per the specifications laid down by the Railway Board and cushioned seats are not provided, this amounts to deficiency in service under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Shri Prabaharan, Appellant in First appeal No. 172 of 1991 is entitled to compensation. (b) On the second point that during peak hours the 1st Class compartments are occupied by unauthorised persons viz., 2nd Class passengers and rural women fold etc. the Southern Railways in spite of their making efforts have not been able to prevent the entry of such unauthorised passengers. But this is essentially a law and order question. It is a matter of public knowledge that either because of serious inadequacy of suburban transport facilities in the metropolitan cities like Madras, Bombay, Calcutta etc. or because of certain indisciplined sections of society, many unauthorised persons enter into the First Class compartments even without tickets and hold up trains. The Railway Staff are by themselves unable to cope with the problem. The use of police to regulate the entry of passengers into compartments often takes an ugly turn. Thus it cannot be said that the entry of unauthorised persons in First Class compartments is due to the negligence of the railways and so the complainant is not entitled to any compensation on this point (c) On the third point that police dogs are carried in 1st Class compartments, and which is not denied by the railway administration, the State Commission has elaborated on the subject and stated that though police dogs may be necessary to detect unwanted elements, like ticketless travellers, thieves etc., they should not be carried in passenger compartments but in separate compartments like guards van as they would be a ''nuisance to lawful travellers.'' This is a suggestion we can make to the Railway authorities. (d) On the point of the Railways hiking up fares of 1st Class travel, the State Commission has elaborated adequately and we are in agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. This brings us to the question of compensation. Shri Prabaharan has claimed compensation on the following heads: (i) For cheating and fraud Rs. 8,66,400.00 (ii) For not responding to repeated complaints Rs. 2,00,000.00 (iii) For loss of status Rs. 2,00,000.00 (iv) For causing back pain and physical strain Rs. 3,00,000.00 (v) For discriminatory practices Rs. 2,00,000.00

Total: Rs. 17,66,400.00 Though the total comes to Rs. 17,66,400.00, at the State Commission level, he restricted his claim upto Rs. 9.5 lakhs, to bring it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Commission.

THE State Commission has elaborated on each count, and did not deem it fit to award any compensation to the complainant

ON various points we are not entirely in agreement with the State Commission. Though it does not amount to cheating and fraud, as such, but not providing cushioned seats is a deficiency in service for which the complainant, i.e. appellant in First Appeal No. 172 of 1991 does require to be compensated. On the point of not responding to repeated complaints, the complainant would feel aggrieved as he has a right to complain and if his complaints are not needed by the appropriate authorities, then it is a disservice to him. It cannot be dismissed as a frivolous claim. Nevertheless claiming a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs on this account is not appropriate. On the other counts too Shri Prabaharan has claimed very high compensation. We cannot acquiesce to such demands.

IN our opinion compensation has to be limited to the failure of the Railways to provide cushioned seats in the First Class compartments on the particular suburban service.

THUS , taking into consideration all the factors we are of the view that appellant in F. A. No. 172 of 1991 is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,000/ - for the physical discomfort and mental stress he experienced on those trips. Thus we dispose of both the appeals. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal disposed. -