NORTHERN RAILWAY Vs. DAU DAYAL CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 6.10.04 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission) in complaint case no. C-309/96. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by a certain Dau Dayal Chaturvedi, power of attorney holder of Sri Guru Sewanandji alias Swami Karshni Guru Sewanand of Karshini Aashram, Raman Reti, Mathura alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Northern Railway Administration and has directed the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.2,46,308 charged in excess from the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of payment till 02.12.97 when the offer was declined by the complainant, besides a compensation of Rs.1 lakh for deficiency in service on account of which the complainant and other passengers were put to great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony during their train journey and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

(2.) Briefly, the facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are that the above-named complainant had reserved a special train on 2.6.94 for journey to various religious places and deposited a sum of Rs.60,000/- for the said purpose on 11.07.94. After finalizing the details of places to be visited and on receipt of the requisite fair, the train was made available on 16.09.94. However, the complainant and other passengers/pilgrims accompanying him found that the special train consisting of different types of bogies; the train had no back-up/alternative arrangement for lighting in case of failure of regular lighting system and no water facilities as a result of which the journey became troublesome and distressful for the passengers. The train was delayed for 2 hours and 40 minutes at Ayodhya Station due to non-availability of locomotive/engine and it was detained for several hours at various other stations. Lastly, it was alleged that one old lady, Smt. Satyawati Chadha who was a passenger in the train un-boarded the bogie at some station in order to fetch water and met with a fatal accident and died on the spot when the train started. It was also alleged that the Railway Authorities had charged fair in excess of the chargeable fair to the extent of Rs.2,07,487/-. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party Railway Administration and it was stated that the Railway administration had offered to refund a sum of Rs.2,46,308/- vide their letter of November, 1997 but the complainant declined to accept the same. It was, however, denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration or its employees or that the old lady had died on account of any negligence on the part of the Northern Railway or its employees. The State Commission, going by the respective pleas, evidence and the material produced on record, partly allowed the complaint in the above manner.

(3.) We have heard Mr. S. C. Rajpal, learned counsel for the appellant Railway Administration but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the respondent as nobody represented the respondent at the time of hearing of the appeal despite due notice on the above-named complainant on whose behalf the complaint was initially filed in the State Commission. Mr. Rajpal, learned counsel for the appellant would assail the finding and the impugned order of the State Commission primarily on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable before the State Commission as a consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint like the present one and grant relief which the State Commission has granted in the present case. The basis of his contention is that the jurisdiction of the consumer forum or even a Civil Court or Tribunal to entertain the proceedings for grant of such a relief is expressly barred by the provisions of section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) because any claim in respect of compensation can be filed only before the Railway Claims Tribunal established under the said Act by virtue of the jurisdiction, power and authority vested in it under section 13 of the Act. For the facility of reference, we would like to extract the provisions of sections 13 and 15 of the said Act as under :-