You can now drive rail horrors to court

 

 

MUMBAI: Next time your long-distance train is behind schedule and the Railways refuses to provide for your safety and accommodation, you can take it to task. In a landmark judgment, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered the Railways to pay compensation to a Kandivali couple, who had to cancel their journey due to the non-cooperation of Railways authorities.

 

After a nine-year battle, Baburam Terhuram Yadav and his wife Simlesh won Rs5,000 as relief for the 'deficiency in service' on the part of Railways. The couple had confirmed tickets to travel between Jaunpur and Mumbai on the Gorakhpur-Dadar Express on January 21, 1996. On reaching Allahabad station, they learned that their train was running late by six hours. The Railways did not provide a reason for the delay. Neither did it take steps to ensure the safety of the stranded couple.

 

When they approached the station master, they were reportedly abused. The station master told the couple that the Railways was not responsible for their accommodation. Yadav and Simlesh, who was pregnant, later learned that the train would be delayed by another two hours. To make matters worse, there was no space in the rest rooms. And when Simlesh started feeling uneasy and began vomiting in the night, there was no doctor at the station to attend on her.

 

When the train finally arrived, the couple thought their hardship had ended. But that was not to be. They could not board the train, as their seats and compartment were occupied by Bajrang Dal activists, who refused to vacate. The Railway police refused to remove the activists. They asked the couple to approach the motorman, who was of no help. The couple finally had to deposit their ticket for refund and cancel their journey.

 

The Railways countered Yadav's claims and argued over the maintainability and of the complaint in Mumbai. It contended that the couple had not used its services, as they had not travelled by the said train. The commission, holding that the case could be heard by the consumer court, said the railways was "duty-bound to accommodate the passengers as per their category of tickets".

 

It concluded by saying that "this type of neglect and callousness on the part of Railways cannot be overlooked…Considering the conduct of the authority towards the complainants, we have no hesitation to award compensation. Railways was grossly negligent at its minimum responsibilities and obligations towards its passengers who had reserved tickets for journey."

 

 

Contention

 

Yadavs did not use Railways services, so they cannot be termed as consumers

 

Verdict

 

Due to non-cooperation / negligence of Railways, complainants had to deposit the tickets, though the complainants had reserved tickets and were entitled for journey. But they could not travel. It amounts to deficiency in service.

 

Contention

 

According to Indian Railways Act No 24 Part I (Vol 7), Railways cannot guarantee departure and arrival of train on time. 

 

Verdict

 

Railways authority simply denied allegations made by the complainant and did not treat complainants with courtesy. Railways has to carry passenger / ticket holder, and it is duty-bound to treat passengers with care and courtesy. The complainants had purchased two reserved tickets and they were expecting to travel in a comfortable manner. But the complainants were put to serious inconvenience.

 

Contention

 

Subject falls within jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal Act under Section 13 and 15

 

Verdict

 

Consumer court cannot supplement the jurisdiction of Railway Tribunal or other quasi-judicial body, but can supplement the jurisdiction of these bodies in appropriate cases. It provides an additional remedy to a consumer

 

Contention 

 

Cause of action was Allahabad Railway station. So State Commission has no jurisdiction

 

Verdict

 

Branch office of Railways is at Mumbai and complainants were residents of Mumbai. Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, lays down that complaint can be filed in a place where branch office of Railways is situated irrespective of where the cause of action occurred.

 

 

 

 

The Railways faced the flak of the the Commission in two other recent cases also.

 

Neetin Khedkar of Chembur was awarded compensation of Rs10,000 as Konkan Railways did not inform him about the rescheduling of the Janshatabdi Express despite having his address and telephone number

 

Vijay Kumar Shah of Matunga was awarded a compensation of Rs2,500 as he was forced to travel in second class despite having a valid and confirmed first-class ticket between Dadar and Miraj. Railways cancelled first-class bogies on Koyna Express without proper intimation.