S S BANSAL Vs. NORTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that Mr. S. S. Bansal, complainant got reserved a berth on 23.7.93 from New Delhi to Jalpaiguri on 5622-DN, North East Express by AC Two Tier for a journey to be performed on 19.9.93. On the date of departure, the complainant reported well in time to board the train. He found that the Coach No. Al in which he had been given reservation was not attached to the train. To add to his misery was the fact that there was no one to guide the complainant and other passengers who had been given reservation in the said coach. There was no notice on the Notice Board nor any alternative arrangement made for such passengers.

(2.) The complainant was helped to get a space for sitting in an over-crowded ordinary sleeper. The electric connection in the said compartment was out of order with the result that there was neither light nor fan. Because of the over-crowding, the complainant could not move to reach the toilet. While being put in the crowded compartment the bushirt of the complainant was torn and his spectacles were broken. One attach case was left at Delhi Railway Station because of the jostling due to over-crowding in the compartment. The complainant remained unwell for a period of about 10 days after the journey. The complainant was not refunded the excessive fare charged for AC Coach, either at New Delhi or on completion of the journey at Jalpaiguri. The complainant wrote several letters including letters dated 8.10.93, 28.11.93 and 20.6.94. He sent the original certificate to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refund) New Delhi Railway Station on 11.2.94 and received a cheque for Rs.781/- dated 17.10.94. The cheque was made payable at Calcutta and was posted quite late to the complainant so that it could be deposited only on 12.1.95 and the complainant had to pay Rs.20/- as collection charges.

(3.) The complainant claimed compensation. The case was contested. District Forum-II took the view that claim for refund of the excessive fare, could be made only before the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. With regard to the alleged deficiency in service it was observed that failure to provide AC Two Tier Coach on that particular day must be due to some compelling reason and it was open to the complainant to abandon the journey and claim total refund of the amount. It was further observed that the complainant having chosen to travel by a lower class was entitled to the refund of the difference which he had already received. With regard to the other short- comings it was stated that there might have been some over-crowding which could have been anticipated and the complainant having decided to travel in sleeper Coach opted to suffer that part of the inconvenience.