|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A recent case decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Sri Purushottam Kejriwal VS Union of India, RP NO 1943 of 2003) is a case in point. Here, the complainant, Purushottam Kejriwal, had a confirmed ticket to travel from Kanpur to Patna. First of all, the train arrived very late in the night and when it did arrive, Kejriwal found the coach (S7) in which he was allotted the berth, missing. On inquiry, he was told that this was not the first time that the coach S7 had not been attached to the train and that this happened frequently. Kejriwal and other passengers who had been given accommodation in S7 then approached the Railway authorities and requested them to make alternate accommodation, but apparently, they were not willing to help. Finally, the passengers, including Kejriwal, got their tickets endorsed for journey by any other train on the route. And the next morning, managed to board another train, only to be forced to detrain at the next station by the TTE. Eventually, the complainant and other passengers had to hire a bus to reach Patna. Here, the Railways was guilty of negligent service on several counts. First of all, after having issued confirmed reserved tickets, it did not provide the promised accommodation to the passengers on the train on which they were booked. Secondly, when the S7 coach was not attached to the train for whatever reason, the Railway authorities should have immediately made alternate arrangements so that the passengers did not face inconvenience. But the Railways failed to do that, even when requested by passengers. And then, when they got on to another train, they were treated like ticketless travellers, humiliated and asked to get down at the next station, forcing them to finally travel by road. Subsequently, when one of the passengers went to the consumer court, what did the Railways do? Instead of apologising to the consumer, the Railways argued that a confirmed reserve ticket did not guarantee the passenger the promised accommodation, knowing fully well that similar arguments had been set aside by the consumer court in the past. It said, for example, that as per Clause 306 of the Indian Railway Coach Tariff, the Railways did not guarantee reserved accommodation. It also contended that that this was a case of refund of fare and the passenger had to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, before which Kejriwal first filed the complaint, rightly dismissed such arguments and directed the Railways to pay a compensation of Rs 15,000, in addition to refunding the cost of the ticket. In the case of B. Pushpakanthi VS General Manager, Southern railways, decided on July 24, 2000, the consumer court had examined Clause 306 and held that it did not protect the Railways against failure to provide accommodation to those who had confirmed reservation. Nor did it give the Railways unbridled powers to cancel confirmed reservations. I must say that the apex consumer court has exhibited considerable patience in dealing with the Railways, but the next time, it may not be so accommodative. And that is when it might well slap a heavy penalty on the Railways and ask the PSU to pay the court, considerable costs for wasting its time. |
IN
the last decade and a half, the apex consumer court has time and again
told the Railways that failure to provide berths and seats to the
passengers who have confirmed, reserved tickets constitutes negligence
and the Railways have to pay for the consequences of such negligent
service. Yet, the biggest public sector undertaking continues to
challenge this, spending public money on needless litigation, besides
wasting the time of the court and that of the consumer.