NORTHERN RAILWAYS STATION SUPERINTENDENT Vs. NISCHAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against the order dated 12.1.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. , Chandigarh [for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II] in Complaint Case No.562 of 1999, Nischal Gupta, s/o Dr. H. C. Gupta, r/o H. No.645, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh against Northern Railway, Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Chandigarh, The General Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi and Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi vide which the District Forum-II has held the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and awarded a consolidated damage of Rs.11,000/- including costs of the case to the complainant. Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow campus, may briefly be stated as under.

(2.) The complainant, travelled by train No.2005 Shatabdi Express from New Delhi to Chandigarh on 5th June, 1999. The said train arived at Chandigarh belatedly and there was delay of about 4 hours from the scheduled time of arrival of the train at Chandigarh Railway Station. The scheduled time of arrival of 2005 Shatabdi train at the railway station is alleged to be 8.17 p. m. The train finally arrived at about 12.15 a. m. It was alleged that the complainant, Sh. Nischal Gupta was travelling by the said Shatabdi train and his old parents had come to railway station to receive him and they were stranded there upto 12.15 a. m. There was no news or announcement made at the railway station regarding the late arrival of the train. Apart from it, it was contended that except for the initial catering service of train, the complainant was not served with snacks or other eatables during the long hours consumed by the journey. The complainant described deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and alleged that it resulted in undue harassment, physical discomfort and mental torture to him as well as to his old parents and claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

(3.) The case was contested by opposite parties, who filed written statement through the Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala. It was alleged in the written statement that the delay in the running of the train aforesaid was not on account of any deficient service, but due to unforeseen circumstances because a goods train had derailed near Karnal and the entire traffic of the route was diverted on the single line. It was stated that repeated announcements were given on the public address system about the late running of the train and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.