Union of India vs Sunil Aggarwal

THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 6.11.91 by which the opposite parties-appellants were directed to refund Rs. 126/- boing the cost of the tickets and pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the complainant respondent, within 30 days from the date of the order.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant booked two railway tickets from computerised reservation system from IRCA Building, New Delhi on 2.5.91 from Bikaner to Delhi for 12.5.91 was allotted PNR No. 310006 (ticket No. 46108178) for train No. 4792 Down. He paid an amount of Rs. 126/- as fare. It is alleged that at the time of booking he was informed by the railway official on duty that a telegram would be sent to Bikaner for reservation of two berths. It is further alleged that the telegram did not reach Bikaner as a result of which the complainant w as not provided with any berth. He was asked to purchase a fresh ticket and get fresh reservation done. He could get fresh reservation for 13.5.91 but it was in the waiting list. Consequently, he claimed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and refund of the amount of Rs. 126/-. The opposite parties contested the claim. It was inter-alia pleaded by them that the service provided to the complainant was a free service and thus he was not entitled to get any compensation. It is further pleaded that the message could not reach Bikaner due to microwave link failure and on that account the reservation could not be made for him.

The Learned District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the claim of the complainant as mentioned above. The Union of India and the G.M., Northern Railway have come up in appeal against the said order to this Commission.

IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the message could not reach Bikaner from Delhi on account of failure in microwave system and that it could not be discovered at Delhi, that the message had been passed on to Bikaner. Consequently the appellants cannot be held liable for that. We heard the parties to a considerable length on 27.7.92 and felt that it was essential that an Engineer from the department be called in order to verify the contention of Mr. Bagga that on account of failure of the micro system it could not be discovered at Delhi whether the message had been passed on to Bikaner or not. In view of our direction Mr. Devinder Batala Automax Incharge of appellant No. 2 appeared before us on 20-8-92 and explained the system. He informed us that if the micro system had failed at the time when the message regarding the booking of the complainant had to be transmitted to Bikaner, the booking office at Delhi could find out the same. IT, therefore, appears that if the officials of the railway had been vigilant, it could be discovered at Delhi. That the message regarding reservation had not been passed on to Bikaner. In the circumstances we are of the view that appellants are at fault in not sending the message for booking of the berths of the complainant to Bikaner. Faced with the above situation, Mr. Bagga has forcefully argued that the service which was rendered by the appellants to the complainant was without any consideration and therefore the alleged default does not fall within the definition of the word ''service'' as defined in Section 2(l)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. We have given due consideration to the argument of the learned Counsel but regret my inability to accept the same. The word "Consumer'' has been defined in Section 2(l)(d) of the Act which reads as follows:- "consumer" means any person who,- (i) XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person;

FROM a perusal of the definition it is evident that it is not necessary that the consideration for the service should be paid at the time of hiring the service. The payment of consideration can be deferred under any system of deferred payment to a later date. It is not disputed that at the time of reservation no consideration is charged by the railway but if the berth is provided, they take the booking charges later from the passenger. In the present case the complainant had purchased the tickets from Bikaner to Delhi and incase the seat had been reserved he would have paid the reservation charges at Bikaner according to the rules. In the aforesaid circumstances in our view, the complainant is covered by the definition of the word ''Consumer'' as given in Section 2(l)(d)(ii). Consequently, we reject the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants. For the aforesaid reasons, we, do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.