STATION MASTER Vs. P SRIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised in this appeal are covered by our decision in General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad V/s. M. Prem Kishore,1998 ALD 98, dated 20.6.1998 against the appellants.

(2.) The complainant booked two tickets for his aged parents for travel from Kakinada Town Railway Station to Singarayakonda by Circar Express (train No.7044) on 17.12.1995. The father of the complainant was given reservation for berth No.28 in S-5 coach. The mother was wait- listed under serial number 71. As per the complaint they all reached Kakinada Town Railway Station forty minutes before the arrival of the train. After the train came the parents of the complainant got into the compartment next to S-4 coach as the number of the S-5 coach was not displayed or mentioned. At Samalkot a T. C. informed them about the cancellation of S-5 coach and asked them to travel in the general compartment without adjusting them in any other reserved compartment. According to the complainant there was negligence on the part of the Railway Authorities in not informing in advance about the cancellation of S-5 coach and for not adjusting his parents in other compartment by providing reservation and for not paying the differential amount. In his complaint O. P. No.39/1996 before the East Godavari District Forum, he claimed the refund of the reservation fee and also compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency in service for causing mental tension, discomfort and hardship to his parents. The opposite parties filed their counter. The reservation of berth No.28 in coach number S-5 in favour of the father of the complainant is admitted. So also that the mother of the complainant was wait listed under serial number 71. It was also stated in the counter that coach number S-5 was missing when the train came from Madras earlier in the day and that consequently the train had to leave Kakinada Port to Madras without coach number S-5. It was also stated that the Railway Authorities at Kakinada Port had no prior intimation that the train would be starting from Madras without S- 5 coach and that they came to know about the absence of S-5 coach only after the train arrived from Madras. It was further stated in the counter as follows : "immediately the Station Authorities both at the Port and Town Railway Stations mentioned this fact in the public notice board. Apart from that the Station through the public address system from about 12 noon about the non-availability of S-5 coach and that the passengers who have been given confirmed tickets in this S- 5 coach will be provided alternative accommodation as far as possible and permissible in other coaches and that if any person desires to discontinue the travel, they can cancel the tickets and take back refund as per rules. "

(3.) But no material had been placed before the District Forum to establish that any such public notice was put up or that the public were informed about the non-availability of S-5 coach through public address system. No affidavit of any railway official was filed to establish the same. It was further stated in the counter that the father of the complainant was allotted seat number 71 in S-8 coach and that his mother was asked to travel in the general compartment. It was admitted by the opposite parties that both of them were aged and that both of them ultimately travelled in the general compartment because the lady could not be provided any seat in S-8 coach for enabling her to travel alongwith her husband.