|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOT providing berths and seats to passengers who have confirmed, reserved tickets constitutes negligence. In the last two decades, courts have time and again reminded the Railways of this. Yet they continue to challenge court verdicts on the issue and waste public money in needless litigation. A couple of months ago, the apex court took up two such revision petitions filed by the Railways. In one case, the complaint was about not providing berths despite reservation. Krishna Goyal was to travel with his family from Hanumangarh to Delhi on June 6, 2004, and had, accordingly, reserved six berths. However, when he reached the station along with his family members, he found the coach in which his berths were reserved missing. He was neither given a refund nor alternate berths, forcing him to hire a taxi for Rs 4,000 and travel the distance. Both the district forum and the state commission, Rajasthan, held the Railways negligent. Yet, they filed a revision petition before the apex court or the national consumer disputes redressal commission, challenging the award of compensation (North West Railway v Krishna Goyal, RP No 2792 of 2008). In the other case, the consumer, Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, had purchased a first class ticket to travel by Ganganagar Express. But on the day of the journey, he was denied travel in the class in which he had booked the ticket. He was first accommodated in a second class coach, and later a sleeper coach. In this case, too, the courts at the district and the state levels held the Railways guilty of deficient service, and the consumer was awarded a compensation of Rs 10,000 (Union of India v Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, RP No 2791 of 2008). In both the cases, the compensation awarded was not large. And as the apex court pointed out, in both the cases, the orders were clear and well-reasoned. Yet, the Railways challenged both the decisions. And how? While in one case, they filed the revision petition before the apex court after a delay of 108 days, in the other, there was a delay of 82 days, and in both cases, the Railways asked for condonation of delay. Under the Consumer Protection Act, an appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order. Delays can be condoned only if there is sufficient reason for it. In both cases, the court felt that the delay was not justifiable. That was not all, the national consumer disputes redressal commission observed in the case of Krishna Goyal that the Railways had given different reasons before the different fora for not attaching the coach in which the complainants had been given reserved berths. While before the district consumer disputes redressal forum they argued that the coach could not reach Suratgarh because of the cancellation of train No 3007 from Delhi to Suratgarh, the Railways argued before the national commission that the coach could not be attached to the train because of some mechanical fault. Eventually, in both the cases, the revision petitions were dismissed by the consumer court, saying that they failed on merits as well as limitation. These were not exceptional cases. In earlier cases, too, the Railways have unnecessarily challenged verdicts awarding compensation to passengers denied berths or seats despite advance reservation. In the case of the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway v K.K.Sharma (RP 300 of 2000), too, they were unwilling to accept negligence and argued in a revision petition before the apex court that reservation was not given to passengers as a matter of right. In this case the purchase of a ticket did not give the complainants the right to reservation, the Railways argued. The national commission dismissed this argument and reminded the Railways that after booking their tickets a month in advance, the consumers sent three telegrams from Shimla to Howrah, reminding them about their reservation. Thus, the fact that there was dereliction of duty and deficiency in service on the part of the Railways could not be disputed, the national commission said.
|
||
|
|
||
