UNION OF INDIA Vs. UNNIKRISHNA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner, the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras challenges the judgment in A.S. 21 of 1986 and A.S. 1 of 1987 of the Ist Additional Sub Judge, Trichur. The Sub Judge dismissed the appeals upholding the compensation granted by the Trial Court in favour of the respondents plaintiffs.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that as the railway authorities failed to provide them berths and seats despite reservations in their favour considerable hardship and distress resulted and on account of it they suffered physically and mentally during the journey from New Delhi to Trichur in an overcrowded compartment. Plaintiffs reserved their seats and berths in 126 K.K. Express from New Delhi Railway Station. The train left New Delhi Railway Station on 18-10-1981 and reached Trichur on 20-10-1981 and plaintiffs travelled without the assured berths and seats.

(3.) One of the contentions of the defendant is that the Sub Judge, Trichur had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits as the plaintiffs purchased the tickets and obtained reservation from New Delhi Railway Station and so Court at New Delhi alone has jurisdiction. We have to consider whether the contention is legally tenable. If such a stand is adopted, plaintiffs would have to approach New Delhi Court to file the suits. That would lead to an absurd and incongruous position. Defendant cannot obviously challenge the jurisdiction of the Trichur Court in view of S.80 of the Indian Railways Act. S.80(b) states that if a passenger purchased his ticket and travelled to a particular destination and if he suffered any loss or injury or damage he can institute the suit either in the Court having jurisdiction over the place at which he obtained the ticket or in the Court having jurisdiction over the destination station. As the destination station admittedly is Trichur, the suits filed by the plaintiffs cannot be thrown out on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. There is no merit in the defence contention that the Court lacked jurisdiction in trying the suits.