UNION OF INDIA vs JUSTICE RAM

THIS is an appeal against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna. That order was made on the complaint filed against Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi & Ors., by the present respondents. The case of the complainant is that Justice R.N. Thakur, his wife Smt Savitri Thakur and nephew Shri Saurav Jyoti Sharma were to go to Guwahati. They tried for reservation in N.E. Express and Tinsukia Mail which passes through Patna but could not succeed. Therefore, they sent a person to Muzaffarpur for reservation for 17th October, 1989 in Avadh-Assam Express. The complainants got three tickets for First Class. Mr. Justice R.N. Thakur, his wife and nephew went to Muzaffarpur from Patna to catch the train. They were given births in a First Class Coupe at Muzaffarpur in which another passenger along-with his attendant was also travelling.

ACCORDING to the case of the complainant the said coupe was hopelessly bad and the door was in broken condition and could not be locked or bolted and the coupe was extremely dirty and not worth use by human being. They complained to the Conductor. At Samastipur, another Coupe which had fallen vacant was given to them but that too was in very bad condition. Though its door could be bolted the compartment was awfully dirty. Instead of screws nails were fitted in benches which were rusted and exposed by which they got scratches twice. Windows were so fitted that in the night when there was rain water came down into the bogey with the result water went under the benches causing inconvenience. The condition of the bath room was also terrible. Water used to leak from the tank with the result there was no water in bath rooms when train was running. Justice Thakur complained, several times to the conductors. Of course water was filled up at halting stations but it all leaked. The wash basins and pans were so dirty that it was impossible to use. Justice Thakur could not use the bath room in the course of his journey of 24 hours. Through out the journey Justice Thakur and his companion remained in mental and physical troture and shock through out the journey and spent sleepless night. Even one of the fans of the coupe was not working. Hence according to the complainant the performance of service by the Railway was very poor and inadequate and it was much below the standard which the Railway was required to maintain. Thus the three complainants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. one and a half lakhs each for mental and physical torture which they suffered due to negligence acts of the Railway Department. The complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties who are now appellants. It was averred that the complaint book was provided with the Guard/Train Superintendent/Conductors for use of the travelling passengers and the Railway Administration expects use of such complaint book by the passenger so that the grievance, if any, recorded by the travelling passengers during their journey, could be considered and the guilty persons be taken up departmentally for their lapse, if any, found during the course of investigations of such complaint or to take suitable steps to improve the service in general. Long distance trains are put on washing pit at the originating stations and thorough check of rake of the train is done by the staff of the Carriage and Wagon Department of the Station under the supervision of Carriage and Wagon Superintendent and fit certificate is granted by the competent staff of the said Department and thereafter the rake is placed for onward movement. The rake in question was thoroughly attended at the New Delhi Railway Station for secondary maintenance. Full coach of 1st Class contains 22 or 24 berths in cabins for two and four having sleeping accommodation for 22 or 24 passengers. Each such coach has 3 or 4 lavatories, one western style and 2 or 3 Indian style with sufficient space and water taps. It is not expected or believable that all the lavatories developed alleged mechanical defect during the course of movement at the same time causing inconvenience to the complainants. At ail important stations it has been exhibited at all conspicuous places that free cleaning service is available and the passengers may utilise such free services, if required, for cleaning the compartment. The travelling passengers use the compartments during the course of journey and, therefore, the standard of cleanliness of the compartment depends upon the travelling passengers. Keeping in view the said facts free service has been provided at all important stations and the passengers/users are supposed to utilise such free service, if required on their own initiative or through the staff of the station or even through the Guard/Conduc-tor/1 ravelling Ticket Examiner of the train for comfortable journey. In the first class coaches and sleeper coaches the Railway Administration provides Attendants/Conductors and Travelling Ticket Examiner to meet the requirements of the travelling passengers to the extent possible and providing facilities/amenities to users of such coaches. At Muzaffarpur Station the complainants were provided berths in the cabin in which the quota of Muzaffarpur was earmarked. On the desire of the complainants they were provided other available accommodation on the next stoppage i.e. Samastipur which goes to show that the Coach Attendant had taken prompt action to provide suitable accommodation as desired by the Complainants without any trouble or harassment. There was no complaint by the complainants or other travelling passengers of the coach about the cleanliness or other alleged condition of the coach. All other allegations of the complainants were also denied.

THE State Commission came to the opinion that the allegations contained in the complaint were correct and thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly Rs. 1,000/- as compensation was awarded to each of the complainants.

FEELING aggrieved the Opposite Parties have come before us by way of this appeal. None has appeared for the Complainants-Respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellants forcefully argued that there was not an iota of evidence on record in support of the allegations contained in the complaint. He pointed out that none of the complainants appeared in the witness box and not even any affidavit was filed by any of the complainants in support of the allegations contained in the complaint. It was also pointed out that admittedly the complainant''s journey lasted for about 24 hours but surprisingly enough no complaint was made with the Guard or at any of the important stations en route journey about the aforesaid condition the coupe. We are of the opinion that the said arguments have force. The findings of the State Commission are based only on the allegations contained in the complaint which have been denied by the Opposite Parties. The complainants or any one of them should have appeared in the witness box or should have filed an affidavit in support of the allegations contained in the complaint. As noticed above no complaint was made with the Guard which could have supported the complainant''s case.

CONSIDERING the above facts we have no other option but to accept the appeal and set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. In the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.