INDIAN RAILWAY Vs. ISH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 0 03. 2016 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 360 of 2015.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ opposite party are that the respondent/ complainant along with his wife and two minor children boarded the train no. 11077, Jhelum Express. They were allotted seat nos. 29, 30, 39 and 40 in B 4 Coach of III AC. The said train started at 09. 50 AM and after some time, the respondents felt that that AC system was not properly working and the matter was reported to the concerned staff and the concerned conductor verbally, who in turn, stated that they were setting the temperature thermostat for proper cooling. However, the staff failed to put the AC system in order and at Jhansi (MP) the same completely broke down. The compartment was air tight and on account of non-functioning of the AC, there was uneasiness and suffocation due to lack of ventilation. This resulted in passengers suffering from vomiting. A complaint was lodged with Mr T K Bhatnagar, Conductor who was on duty who received and acknowledged the same. Further, there was no water in the washroom and the 3rd AC was worse than a general coach due to the mal-functioning of the AC system. At each and every station, whereever the train halted the passengers were assured by the conductor, TTE and other staff that they were trying to set the AC system in order but ultimately, they showed their inability and helplessness to set the same in order. The railway authorities assured that the same would be set in order at New Delhi Railway Station, but the same was not done at Delhi also. No alternative arrangements were also made to shift the passengers to other coach. The respondents travelled the journey of 30 hours in an air tight closed railway apartment, which was like a hell, especially in the hot humidity of rainy days. Further, there was no medical help in the train and he was unable to provide medical aid to his children who were suffering from vomiting. Medical aid was provided only when the train halted at Jalandhar. Despite the complaint made by the respondent no action was taken by the officials of the petitioners. These acts of omissions on the part amount of the railway authority to gross negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, the respondent is entitled to be refund the train fare of Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

(3.) The petitioners/ opposite parties in their reply before the District Forum they did not dispute that the respondent along with his family members boarded the train. The petitioners have denied the other allegations made in the complaint and averred that the AC was working and the cooling was proper which was as per the requirement of all the passengers. In these circumstances, there was no question of making any complaint by the respondent nor was such a complaint made. Therefore, there was no question of any inconvenience, mental pain or agony to the respondent or his family members. There was no deficiency in service on their part nor did they indulge in unfair trade practice. The respondent has no cause of action to file this complaint and the same is not maintainable. Further, the respondents have suppressed the material facts and have not come to the District Forum with clean hands. The same is bad for non-joinder of petitioner no. 3/OP no. 3 who has no concern with the alleged grievance made in the complaint. Hence, the petitioners have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs, being false and abuse of the process of law and having been filed to extort money in the form of compensation.