Case Title: Northern Western Railway and Another v. Sanjay Shukla
To establish and demonstrate that a train's late arrival was due to circumstances beyond their control, the Supreme Court ruled that the railways must produce proof and a justification, and until they do so, they are obligated to compensate for the delay.
With this in mind, the Court upheld the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which had confirmed the original order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, allowing the respondent's complaint and directing the Northern Western Railway to pay Rs. 15,000/- for taxi expenses, Rs. 10,000/- for booking expenses, and Rs. 5,000/- each for mental agony and litigation.
A Bench of Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose was hearing a special leave plea filed by the Northern Western Railway, which was dissatisfied with the judgement.
The respondent claimed that because the Ajmer Jammu Express Train was four hours late, he missed his connecting flight from Jammu to Srinagar, which was scheduled to depart at noon. As a result of having to travel to Srinagar by taxi, he lost Rs. 9,000/- in airfare and had to pay Rs.15,000/- in taxi hire expenses. The respondent additionally lost Rs. 10,000/- due to the booking of a boat in Dal Lake.
The District Forum, therefore, issued an order in favour of the respondent, which was thereafter upheld by the State Commission in an appeal and then by the National Commission in the revision petition by the impugned judgement and order.
Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, argued that the late running of the train could not be attributed to a lack of service on the part of the railways.
She also cited Rules 114 and 115 of the Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No. 26 Part-I (Volume-I), which indicated that railways are not obligated to pay compensation for late trains. It was also mentioned that there could be a variety of reasons for the train's delay and late arrival.
The Bench noticed that the railways provided no evidence to explain the delay and/or late arrival of trains in Jammu.
"The railways were compelled to lead the evidence and explain the late arrival of the train to establish and prove that the delay was caused by factors beyond their control. At the very least, the railways were expected to justify the delay, which they failed to do. It cannot be denied that every passenger's time is valuable, and they may have bought tickets for further journeys, such as in the current situation from Jammu to Srinagar and then additional journeys."
In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the absence of any evidence led to explain the delay, the District Forum, the State Commission, and the National Commission were found to have appropriately observed that service was deficient on the part of the railways, for which they were obliged by law to reimburse the passenger.
Thus, the Court concluded that no interference was required in the exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution and dismissed the SLP.