R SATYANARAYANAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -we are satisfied that this is a fit case to be allowed. The complainant herein has booked tickets for himself and his family members from Chennai to Mumbai and from Mumbai to New Delhi and from New Delhi to Howrah and from Howrah to Jalpaiguri. That part of the journey from Chennai to Mumbai and Mumbai to New Delhi were performed without any hitch. The complainant had booked tickets for his travel from Howrah to Jalpaiguri by the train leaving Howrah in the evening. The train from Howrah to New Jalpaiguri was scheduled to leave Howrah at 15.25 hours. The train by which the complainant and his family travelled from New Delhi to Howrah was scheduled to reach Howrah at 10.45 hours whereas they reached Howrah only at 5.40 p. m. Since the train reached very late, the complainant and his family could not catch the train bound for New Jalpaiguri. For the train had left Howrah Station by about 3.30 p. m. The complainant, therefore, could not perform his journey from Howrah to New Jalpaiguri and, therefore, had to cancel his journey. The complainant and his family had to travel from Howrah to New Jalpaiguri by bus. Thereafter, the complainant wrote to the opposite party for refund of the cancellation fee along with a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for mental agony, Rs.500/- towards cost and Rs.250/- towards private lodging.

(2.) The Lower Forum dismissed the complaint. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the complainant has preferred this appeal. The opposite party admit that the train from New Delhi to Howrah which ought to have reached Howrah in the morning around 10.45 a. m. actually reached only at 5.30 p. m. and, therefore, the complainant could not catch the connecting train to New Jalpaiguri and that he did cancel the ticket booked by him from Howrah to Jalpaiguri. The opposite party would say that the train was late because of some mechanical fault which developed on the way and on account of the some agitation as well. The opposite parties cannot simply escape from their liability by stating certain reasons without taking any steps to substantiate the same. It is not shown or proved that there was any legitimate reason for the delay or that the late running was beyond their control. They ought to be in possession of necessary records to establish the same, yet, they have failed to do so.

(3.) The opposite party would contend that the Railways do not guarantee due arrival and departure of train as per time table and is not liable to compensate the passengers on account of the delay. If such a stand is to be taken, then, there is no point in any one undertaking journey by train. Then what for the Railways publish and sell time-tables, one is unable to understand. If it is to be stated that they are not bound to run the trains on time and that they can arrive late and they do not guarantee due arrival and departure, then what for such a huge organization is maintained. It is after all a public utility service. They are bound to maintain certain standard of service. The rules and regulations can come to their aid only and if certain things had happened beyond their control, then alone as an escape route, these rules can be quoted, cited or resorted to. For every late coming and late arrival of the train, they cannot cite the rules and regulations. That would only amount to perpetuating inefficiency and indifference. The rules and regulations are not there to uphold inefficiency and indifference. The Railways when they proclaim proudly that it is the largest organisation in Asia should always see to it that they do not slide down to become an organisation least concerned for the passengers. After all people travel by trains in the hope that they reach their destination safely and if not on time at least after some delay. The Railways should empathize with the public. Therefore, to say that they do not guarantee due arrival and departure is but a confession of their inefficiency, apathy. We do not, therefore, think that the railway organization is above law. It is doing service to the public by collecting fares. When they collect fares along with it there is a guarantee attached to it that there will be a satisfactory service rendered. If trains are to be run to their whims and fancies and without caring for a time schedule, then there is no purpose of running such a public utility service at all. On account of the deficiency in service, the complainant missed his train. If the delay was by an hour or two, one can understand and can attribute it as a pardonable delay but a train which ought to have arrived at Howrah at 10.45 hours should reach Howrah in the evening at 5.45 hours, nearly after 7 hours is but a pinnacle of inefficiency and deficiency.