V.K.KAPOOR vs Divisional Railway Manager

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 24th August, 1995 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in their Case No. 29/95 wherein the District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and ordered the opposite parties to pay Rs. 300/- and cost of proceedings Rs. 50/- to the complainant within one month of the receipt of the order for the inconvenience faced by him and his family members during their Journey from Bhopal to New Delhi on 21.12.94. The appellants has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the District Forum did not consider all the grievances pointed out by him in his complaint. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record of the case.

THE undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant along with his wife and two children travelled from Bhopal to New Delhi on the night of 21.12.94 by C.T. Express in AC II tier compartment. THE train on that day arrived at 12.50 past mid night and he travelled in coach No. 7776 which was a composite coach half being AC 1st class and half being AC IInd class. The complainant alleged following deficiencies in his complaint : (i) That the arrival time of the train is 12.05 but the reservation chart was not affixed on the Board till 12.05 whereas it should have been affixed one hour before arrival time of the train. Reservation chart was affixed round about 12.10. (ii) That it was not mentioned in the reservation chart as to what was the position of the coach in the train i.e. which number bogie from engine and since usually AC coach remains at the end of the train and this time it was at No. 2 or 3 from the engine, they faced lot of trouble in running down to the coach for a long distance. (iii) That the entrance gate of AC II tier part of the coach was closed and, therefore, they had to enter through the entrance gate of AC 1st class part of the coach wherein the corridor was jam packed as a number of people had come to see off a VIP who was travelling in it. Hence it was with great difficulty that they could reach their berths and amidst the melee they lost one quilt and faced great physical discomfort. (iv) That the Conductor of the coach came 15 minutes after the departure of the train. (v) That when he wanted to report the matter in writing, he could not get complaint book.

In reply, the opposite party the Central Railway stated that the reservation chart was affixed and the position of the coach from engine was displayed as "second ". That the complainant wrongly saw the chart of previous date. That it is wrong to say that chart was affixed at 12.10 hours. That one door of the coach was closed from safety point of view. That there was no reservation for any VIP in AC 1st class.

BESIDES this the Counsel for the respondent-Central Railway further argued that the complainant did not give his residential address, but gave his address as Secretary, Human Rights Commission, to influence the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies. That the facilities of affixtion of reservation chart etc. are provided not under any rule and law but as a good gesture for the convenience of the passengers. So far as reservation facilities are concerned, the facilities provided by the Railway. are invariably mentioned in each and every Time Table published by Central Railway. For the year 1994, in the Central Railway Time Table, giving train timings from 1st July, 1994 the information on reservation given, in para 19 of the Time Table states the duties of Conductor as below : "To direct and assist upper class passengers joining at intermediate stations in finding accommodation in the compartment where room is available for them." In para 20 the duty list of coach attendant mentions as under in Sub-paras-3 and 4 : "(3) To keep compartment locked when the train is on run and open them for occupation as and when required. (4) To prevent entry of unauthorised passengers in the coach especially in corridor."

ACCORDINGLY every upper class coach i.e. First or 2nd Class AC coach has one coach attendant and at least one conductor for two or three such coaches. Therefore according to the information contained in the Railway Time Table quoted as above, non-availability of the conductor to direct and assist the passengers joining at intermediate stations is a "deficiency". Similarly, when the coach was a composite coach wherein a dozen persons were to board AC IInd class and only two persons were to board AC 1st class and when there was rush in AC 1st class, it was bounden duty of the coach attendant to open direct entry door to AC IInd Class for a dozen passengers. The plea of the Railway that the gate was kept closed from safety point of view, does not appeal to reason and is only a reply to cover their deficiency. As such, the finding of the District Forum as contained in para 11 is perfectly correct. So far as this contention of the Railway is concerned that display of reservation chart is only a facility granted by the Railway and is not provided under any rule or law, we feel inclined to mention here that when an act is performed for a number of years and there has been a precedence, every day at all the Railway Stations for a number of years that the reservation chart is affixed on the board, an hour before the arrival of the train it becomes the bounden duty of the concerned Railway employees to ensure that reservation chart is affixed an hour before the arrival of the train. When unwritten Constitution can work for centuries in England, a duty for the facility of the passengers having been performed regularly for years together all over the country, as stated above, becomes mandatory part of the duty of the respected employees. Therefore, merely saying that this is only a facility and not a duty does not absolve the Railway from its responsibility, in this respect. To say that bogies can change place in sequence of the train and if changed, it does not amount to deficiency may be correct on one extent but when the trains consist of 18 or more bogies and the position of respective coaches from the engine remains same regularly every day and it is in rarest of rarer cases that the position changes it is again a part of duty for the Railways to make an announcement to that effect as they make announcement of timings of the Railways. This announcement could have been made alongwith the announcement of the timings of the concerned train. Even if it may not be a duty to do so, we feel this should have been done and must be done in future, if not done so far.

THE Railway in their reply have said that there was no reservation for VIP berths in AC I coach on that day and they have attached reservation chart in this respect. But, this reply is also of no avail. THEre may not have been any advance reservation but when the berths were vacant any passenger though not having any advance reservation but holding valid ticket could have boarded the coach with the permission of the Railway Conductor. THE Railways have not stated categorically that nobody entered at Bhopal in the VIP compartment on that day. THEy have not denied this allegation of the complainant by an affidavit of coach attendant or conductor that there was no crowd in the corridor of the AC 1st class. In the absence of specific denial we do not see any reason to disbelieve the complaint that some VIP boarded the train and a lot of people had come to see him off and had gathered in the corridor. When the Railway Time Table specifically mentions in the duty list of coach attendant that he has to prevent entry of unauthorised passengers in the coach especially in corridor, this has been a dereliction of duty on the part of the concerned Railway employee or employees. THE Railway cannot run away from the responsibility by saying that a conductor or coach attendant alone could not have afforded to prevent entry because the Railways have police and also RPF at Bhopal Station and these forces are there only to assist the Railways in performance of their duties and their help could have been taken.

SO far as, this argument of the respondents is concerned that the complainant gave his official address and not residential address, we do agree that the complainant in his individual capacity should have given only his residential address because it has not been alleged in the complaint that he was travelling in his official capacity as Secretary, Human Rights Commission. But, we do not agree with this contention of the Counsel for the appellant that by giving his official address he wanted to influence the Forum. On the other hand, we feel that since the complainant is Secretary of the Human Rights Commission, he probably was more enthusiastic to ensure that in future consumers may not suffer as he has suffered and in this zeal he may have given his official address. The Counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments further argued that there were four passengers travelling on the composite ticket whereas the complaint was filed by only one person and yet the Forum granted compensation to the three other passengers also who were not complainants in the instant case. In this connection, we find that the complainant was the head of his family and hence we do not find any reason to disallow the compensation awarded by the District Forum to other three co-passengers, who were his family members.

The appellant has stated that the amount of compensation should be enhanced because of non-compliance of usual functions like delayed affixture of reservation chart and unusual placement of AC coach in the train as stated above. Though these functions should have essentially been performed as stated but since they are not to be performed according to any law, we do not see there is any justification for enhancing the compensation. The compensation awarded on the ground mentioned in para 11 of the order of the Forum, appears to be sufficient.

WITH these observations, the appeal is disposed of. The order of the District Forum is accordingly maintained. Appeal disposed of. ______________