UNION OF INDIA Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India representing Northern Railways is the appellant. The order under challenge is of District Forum, Amritsar dated September 19, 1997. A direction was given to the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant Jaspal Singh of Amritsar.

(2.) The broad facts are not in dispute. Hence it is not considered necessary to refer to in detail the pleadings of the parties. The complainant booked five tickets for journey Amritsar to Howrah with a break at Patna. The tickets were got reserved at Railway Station, Amritsar on May 31, 1997. All the passengers boarded the train on May 31, 1997. The problem started at Patna. Only two seats from Patna to Howrah were confirmed whereas the other passengers were to be on waiting list. On starting journey from Patna on June 4,1997, they came to know that Train No.3049 leaving for Howrah was not having First Class Compartment for which the tickets were got reserved. Thus, they were put to inconvenience. As per plea of the Railways, since first class coach was not available, the same was not in the train for technical reasons. The journey is stated to have been performed in a second class compartment without any seats. The family members of the complainant suffered illness apart from inconvenience. Claiming Rs.2 lacs as compensation, the District Forum was approached. Denying the liability, the Railways submitted the version that there was no negligent act on their part in not providing first class coach at Patna with the train. On the evidence produced on affidavits and documents, the impugned order was passed.

(3.) The present case is squarely covered by the decision of this State Commission in Union of India V/s. B. S. Sangha, Advocate,1997 2 CPJ 552 Several cases earlier decided by different State Commissions were discussed in the aforesaid judgment. The following propositions of law were laid down : (i) There may be a case of deficiency in rendering service in not providing reserved seats for whatsoever reason may be such as non-availability of such a coach of the category for which reservations were made. (ii) In order to grant compensation for the loss suffered, apart from finding of deficiency in rendering service, it is necessary to further find that such loss suffered was on account of negligent act on the part of the opposite party. Non-availability of such category of coach for technical reasons or for reasons which were beyond the control of the Railways, cannot be considered to be a negligent act entitling the complainant to compensation.