AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant and his wife who were to travel from Dholpur to Bhopal booked two births in Malwa Express for travel on 14-02-2013. The train had to stop at Dholpur only for two minutes. The case of the complainant/respondent is that he reached the station in time but could not board the Coach No.B2 in which births were allocated to him, because the doors of the coach
were found closed from inside. The complainant and his wife, therefore, had no option but to make attempts to board some other coach of the train. They were able to board Coach No.S4. However, they were unable to reach Coach No.B2 from Coach No.S4 since they were not connected. At Morena, the next station, the complainant and his wife again tried to board and Coach B2 but, again, the Coach door was not opened despite the TTE of Coach B2 having already been informed by the TTE of Coach S4, that two passengers were unable to board the Coach at Dholpur. As a result, they missed the train at Morena and had to take another train to reach Bhopal, paying fare for the said journey. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the doors of the Coach No.B2 were open for two minutes when the train halted at Dholpur Railway Station and, therefore, there was no deficiency on their part in rendering services to the complainant and his wife. It was alleged in the reply that since, there was five coaches between Coach No.S4 and B2 perhaps due to long distance the complainant and his wife could not reach the Coach No.B2 in time and, therefore, boarded Coach No.S4.
Vide its order dated 14-03-2014 the concerned District Forum directed the petitioner to refund the fare charged from the complainant and also directed them to pay Rs.10,000/- each as compensation to the complainant and his wife besides cost of litigation quantified at Rs.1,000/-. It was also directed that compensation be debited from the salary of the TTE Pravin Daniel, whereas the cost of litigation be debited to the salary of the Coach Attendant.
Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 10-10-2014 they are before us by way of this revision petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the affidavit of Shri Pravin Daniel, TTE of Coach No.A1, B1, B2 and B3 in support of his contention that the doors of Coach No.B2 were actually open and the TTE had also got down at the railway platform but finding no passenger there he again boarded the train. In exercise of our revisional jurisdiction we will not be justified in interfering with a finding of fact recorded by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission, unless the same is shown to be perverse. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the view taken by the District Forum and the State Commission was such that it could not have been taken by any reasonable person acting on the material available on record. Therefore, the aforesaid finding cannot be said to be perverse, so as to call for interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the very fact that the complainant was able to board the Coach No.S4 is a clear indicator that he and his wife had reached the Railway Station in time. Had they been late they would not have been able to board the train at all. We are not inclined to accept the contention that the complainant and his wife were able to reach only upto Coach No.S4 and that is why they boarded the said coach. Had that been the case there would have been no occasion for them to approach the District Forum for the redressal of their grievance.
For the reasons stated hereinabove we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Even otherwise we are of the view that considering the amount of the compensation awarded by the District Forum and the State Commission, there was no justification for the petitioner to approach this Commission by way of a revision petition, particularly when no legal issue was involved in the case and the only question which fell for adjudication as to whether the doors of the coach were open for two minutes at Dholpur Railway Station or not. In
fact, considering the plight of the complainant and his wife during a cold winter night, which got further accentuated due to doors of Coach B2 having not been opened even at Morena, the compensation awarded to them appears to be grossly inadequate. The revision petition stands dismissed. The order of the fora below, unless already implemented, be implemented in all respects, within four weeks.