UNION OF INDIA Vs. ARCHANA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. IN order to undertake jouney by train from Jodhpur to Delhi in connection with the treatment of their child the respondent and her husband had got 3 berths reserved in Jaisalmer-Jodhpur Express on 6.11.1993 and in Jodhpur-Delhi Express train on 7.11.1993. They experienced no problem during their journey from Jaisalmer to Jodhpur. But on reaching Jodhpur Railway Station in order to board the connecting train they did not find their names mentioned in the reservation chart. The train was there on the platform and the husband of the respondent made efforts to contact the authorities concerned at the railway station. He had to lodge a complaint with the station master in that behalf. His complaint was registered at S. No.83 dated 7.11.1993. During the meanwhile the train left the platform and consequently the respondent, her husband and their ailing child could not board the train. They demanded refund of their money but that was also not paid to them. They had to hire a taxi in order to take their ailing child from Jodhpur to Delhi and had to pay a fare of Rs.3,000 in that respect. Although the railway administration denied their liability to pay any amount to the respondent on account of compensation for mental agony and refund of the fare, but the D. F. held that the appellant had rendered deficient services to the respondent. The D. F. , therefore, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.500 as cost of litigation and Rs.3,000 as compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort to the respondent. Aggrieved the appellant is now before us in this appeal.

(2.) It was vehemently urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent should have contacted the T. T. I. /conductor in the compartment concerned and since they did not try to contact him, they cannot complain of any deficiency in service on the part of the railway administration. We, however, find that it stood established on record that the respondent, her husband and their child were having 3 reserved berths in Jodhpur-Delhi Express train leaving the platform on 7.11.1993. They have reached the platform in time but their names were not mentioned in the reservation chart placed on the notice board. Therefore, they could have naturally contacted the station master and lodged their complaint. Non-mentioning of their names in the reservation chart was an act of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

(3.) Since the version of the respondent was that she was taking her ailing child for treatment to Delhi, her version that she had to hire a taxi from Jodhpur to Delhi was also acceptable and has rightly been accepted by the D. F.