STATION SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAY STATION,JAMMU vs RACHNA VINOD

THESE are two counter appeals filed against the judgment and order dated 8-12-1993 passed by the Divisional Forum jammu. Both these appeals will be disposed off by this order.

THE facts revealed are that Rachna Vinod booked a seat in AC Two Tier Sleeper from Delhi to Jammu on 13.10.1991 by Jammu Mail and the Station Superintendent intimated her that the seat has been reserved. However, on reaching the Railway Station Delhi she was told that no such reservation has been made in her name. She was put to a lot of trouble and inspite of he protests no other seat was made available to her and the Railways failed to provide her any alternate accommodation. She therefore, was put to a lot of inconvenience and agony and mental torture and had to undergo unnecessary expenses and had to rush to the Airport and come to Jammu by air. She claimed compensation in the amount of Rs 50,000/- for the said inconvenience caused to her. THE Railways contested the complaint and raised a number of grounds in opposition to the grant of compensation. All their objections were, however, over-ruled by the Divisional Forum and an order was passed allowing Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to Rachna Vinod. Both the parties have felt aggrieved by this order, Rechna Vinod for awarding her less compensation and Railways for having granted compensation which they thought was not due to Rachna Vinod.

The learned Divisional Forum Jammu in a very lucid judgment has rejected the objections raised by the Railways regarding the filing of and continuation of the complaint under the Consumers Protection Act.

THE first objection raised by the Railways was that as the complainant has asked for a compensation in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- the complaint therefore had to be filed in the State Commission and that the Divisional Forum Jammu had no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint as the amount involved was Rs. 50,000/- which, according to the interpretation put on by the Railways, meant that a complaint for an amount of less than Rs. 50,000/- could be filed in the Divisional Forum and not for a full amount of Rs. 50,000/-. On reading together Section 9 and Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act the Divisional Forum Jammu was of the view that the complaint asked for exactly Rs. 50,000/- was maintainable in that Forum. We uphold this view and hold that the Divisional Forum Jammu was completely within its rights & jurisdiction to hear try the complaint for Rs. 50,000/- and below. The order impugned was given on 812-1993. The appeal against that order could in law have been filed within 30 days from the said date but the appeal has been filed by the Railways on 2.3.1994, many days after the period of limitation under the Consumers Protection Act had expired. The appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay also but on perusal of the grounds given therein for late filing of the appeal have not been found by us to be sufficient for condonation. The appeal of the Railways could be dismissed on this ground alone. The application for condonation of appeal is, therefore, rejected, and consequently appeal filed by the Station Superintendent Railway Station Jammu is also dismissed.

THE other appeal filed by Rachna Vinod has been filed in grievance against the Divisional Forum for not having allowed full compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- in her favour which she had compained. On perusal of the appeal and reply thereto filed by the Railways, we are of the considered view that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded by the Divisional Forum Jammu as compensation was under the circumstances of the case quite reasonable and justified and we hold it so. THE appeal filed by Rachna Vinod is also, therefore, dismissed. Copies of this order be sent to both the parties as also to the learned Divisional Forum Jammu free of cost. Appeal dismissed.