Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion — First Appeal No. 170 of 2021

Court/Bench: Consumer Commission Bench (Presiding: Justice Daya Chaudhary; Members: Rajinder Kumar Goyal and Urvashi Agnihotri)

Date of Decision: October 26, 2021

Nature of proceeding: Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent/complainant, Sujinder Singh (age 64), booked return three-tier sleeper train tickets from Amritsar to New Delhi for departure on 01.08.2018 (Hira Kund Express No.18508) and return on 03.08.2018 (Shan-E-Punjab No.12497). On the outward journey the train's scheduled departure was repeatedly announced as delayed (initially changed to 1:30 a.m., then to 2:30 a.m., and later to 5:00 a.m.), and eventually departed late; the train arrived at New Delhi at 1:15 p.m. The complainant alleged that because of the delay he missed an outpatient (OPD) medical appointment at AIIMS scheduled within clinic hours (9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.), and that he suffered harassment and humiliation, particularly given his age and medical conditions (chest infection, breathing problem, cervical, diabetes and low blood pressure).

The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. The District Commission allowed the complaint by order dated 23.02.2021, awarding compensation of Rs. 20,000 and litigation costs of Rs. 2,000, with compliance to be made within 30 days. The appellants (Divisional Regional Manager (H.O.), Northern Railway, Ferozepur and the Station Master, Northern Railway, Amritsar) challenged that order by filing the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (First Appeal No. 170 of 2021).

The case proceeded to hearing on multiple dates (first heard on 25.05.2021, adjourned to 04.06.2021, notice issued for 20.07.2021). The respondent appeared in person on several occasions (03.09.2021 and 19.10.2021). Written submissions were filed on behalf of the appellants; the respondent gave oral submissions in person. The bench considered the impugned order, written submissions of the appellants and the record on file.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the District Commission's finding of deficiency in service by the railways for delay in departure/arrival of trains, and the award of compensation, is unsustainable and should be interfered with on appeal.
  2. Whether the appellants discharged the burden of proof to show that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control.
  3. Whether the absence or timing of medical documentation (AIIMS medical certificate produced on record dated 25.09.2018) affects the complainant's entitlement to compensation for harassment and loss caused by the delay.
  4. Whether the availability of waiting rooms at the railway station absolves the railways of liability for the consequences of the delay.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments (as per written submissions)

  • Proper announcements were made informing passengers of the delay in departure of the train.
  • The circumstances causing the delay were beyond the control of the railway authorities.
  • No medical certificate from AIIMS, New Delhi was produced by the complainant on record to substantiate the asserted medical appointment; the medical certificate produced was dated 25.09.2018, i.e., approximately two months after the journey.
  • Waiting rooms were available at the railway station for rest and relaxation, implying that the complainant could have availed such facilities during the delay.
  • (It was fairly conceded in submissions that the train was delayed for more than three hours.)

Respondent/Complainant's Arguments (as recorded)

  • The complainant asserted that he was harassed and humiliated due to the repeated delays and that he could not obtain the OPD medical check-up at AIIMS because the train reached after clinic hours.
  • The complainant stated he had been repeatedly harassed on prior occasions when travelling from Amritsar, and requested the matter be considered (he appeared in person and made oral submissions).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Northern Western Railway & Anr. v. Sanjay Shukla, SLP (C) No.13288 of 2021 (decided 06.09.2021) Railways must lead evidence explaining delay/late arrival of trains; absent such explanation showing delay was beyond railway's control, the railway is liable for deficiency in service and liable to pay compensation for loss and agony suffered by the passenger. The bench relied on the quoted paragraph from the Supreme Court decision to hold that the appellants failed to produce evidence explaining the delay; therefore, in the absence of such evidence the District Commission's finding of deficiency in service and award of compensation was upheld.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's reasoning proceeded in the following steps, as reflected in the opinion:

  1. The court accepted as undisputed the primary facts: purchase of three-tier sleeper tickets for the specified dates, the complainant's age, and that the trains were late both on the outward and return journeys. These facts were not contested before either the District Commission or this Commission.
  2. From the complainant's appearance, age and the averments made in the complaint and during hearing, the court found the complainant's account credible and observed that the complainant did not appear to have been travelling in a leisurely mood; the complainant's claims of hardship and harassment were thus accepted.
  3. The appellants bore the burden of producing cogent and convincing evidence to demonstrate that the delay in departure/arrival was due to reasons beyond their control. The court found that no such evidence was produced either before the District Commission or before this Commission; this finding was supported by the appellants' written submissions which did not establish the cause of delay.
  4. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Northern Western Railway & Anr. v. Sanjay Shukla (SLP No.13288 of 2021) which held that railways must lead evidence explaining delays, and that absent such evidence, liability for compensation follows. The court treated that precedent as directly applicable to the facts of the present case.
  5. The appellants' contention that waiting rooms were available was regarded as unconvincing on account of practical considerations: the court noted that given the space available and the number of passengers, it was not credible that every affected passenger could obtain a place to sit and rest in a waiting room.
  6. Having considered the District Commission's findings, the factual record, the appellants' failure to discharge their evidentiary burden, and the cited Supreme Court authority, the court concluded there was no illegality or infirmity in the District Commission's decision to award compensation for deficiency in service.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding (core ruling): The appeal filed by the appellants (Divisional Regional Manager (H.O.), Northern Railway, Ferozepur and Station Master, Northern Railway, Amritsar) was dismissed. The District Commission's order dated 23.02.2021, which allowed the complainant's complaint and directed payment of Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as litigation costs, stands.

Direct consequences and procedural directions:

  • The appellants had deposited Rs. 11,000 at the time of filing the appeal. The Registry was directed to remit that amount, along with any accrued interest, to the District Commission forthwith.
  • The respondent/complainant was permitted to approach the District Commission for release of the deposited amount, and the District Commission was directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law regarding release of the funds.

Implications beyond the parties: The opinion does not purport to lay down a new legal principle; it applies existing authority (the cited Supreme Court decision) and confirms that, in these circumstances, the absence of evidence from the railway explaining delay supports a finding of deficiency in service and an award of compensation. No novel precedent was set by this bench decision.

This summary is based exclusively on the contents of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond those stated in the text.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Divisional Manager & Anr. v. Sujinder Singh

    2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

    3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:- For the appellants : None For the respondent : Sh. Sujinder Singh, in person. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT The appellants/opposite parties, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the District Consumer First Appeal No.170 of 2021 Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short, the District Commission), have filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Vide the said order, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and he was granted compensation of 20,000/- and 2,000/- as litigation costs.

    2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

    3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the complaint are that the complainant, Sujinder Singh, who was 64 years of age, being a senior citizen, booked two tickets for up and down departure from Amritsar to New Delhi for 01.08.2018 and arrival from New Delhi to Amritsar on 03.08.2018. He booked three tier sleeper for 01.08.2018 in Hira Kund Express bearing Train No.18508 from Amritsar to New Delhi and for return on 03.08.2018 in Shan-E-Punjab bearing Train No.12497 from New Delhi to Amritsar. The said tickets were booked through online at Amritsar. The departure of train i.e. Hira Kund Express, which runs from Amritsar to Vishakhapatnam, was at 11.45 p.m. The complainant reached the Railway Station at 11.00 p.m. As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant reached at the platform much earlier than the scheduled time of the train. However, at about 11.30 p.m., the Railway Authorities announced that the departure time of the train was changed to 1.30 a.m. (wrongly written in complaint as 1.30 P.M.) at platform No.5. The departure First Appeal No.170 of 2021 time of the train was further changed to 2.30 a.m. (wrongly written in complaint as 2.30 P.M.) but the train was again late, as it was announced that the train was to depart from Amritsar at 5.00 a.m. The complainant, being a patient of chest infection, breathing problem, cervical, sugar and low blood pressure, had to move from one platform to the other with the help of two unidentified persons. The train arrived at Amritsar Railway Station at 10.30 p.m. The complainant had to visit Delhi for medical check-up in OPD at AIIMS but the train reached New Delhi Railway Station at 1.15 p.m., whereas the OPD remained open from 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Because of delayed arrival of train, the complainant could not get any medical check-up and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Not only, he could take the treatment but was harassed and humiliated as well, being an old person. The trains were late while going from Amritsar to New Delhi and on return from New Delhi to Amritsar.

    4. The complaint filed by the complainant was allowed, vide impugned order dated 23.02.2021, with the directions to the appellants/opposite parties to pay compensation of 20,000/- and 2,000/- as litigation expenses. The compliance of the order was to be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.

    5. The said order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by way of filing the present appeal by the appellants/opposite parties i.e. Divisional Regional Manager First Appeal No.170 of 2021 (H.O.), Northern Railway, Ferozepur and Station Master, Northern Railway, Railway Station, Amritsar, by raising various grounds.

    6. The case came up for hearing for the first time on 25.05.2021 and thereafter, it was adjourned to 04.06.2021. On 04.06.2021, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent/complainant for 20.07.2021. The respondent/complainant appeared before this Commission on 03.09.2021 as well as 19.10.2021.

    7. The respondent/complainant, while appearing in person, submits that earlier also, he has been harassed, as every time he has to come from Amritsar, which has caused further harassment to him. On the request, the case was kept as pass-over but even in the pass- over, nobody appeared for the appellants. However, written arguments have been filed by the appellants, which are on record. We have heard the respondent/complainant, while appearing in person, and have also gone through the impugned order, written submissions filed by the appellants and the record available on the file.

    8. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellants, the only objection has been raised that proper announcement of factum of delay in departure of the train was made and the circumstances were beyond the control. Another objection has been raised by the appellants in the written submissions that no medical certificate of AIIMS, New Delhi was produced by the complainant on First Appeal No.170 of 2021 record and the medical certificate dated 25.09.2018 was of period of two months after the date of travel. It has also been submitted that the waiting rooms were available at the Railway Station for rest and relaxation purposes but it has fairly been conceded that the train was delayed for more than three hours.

    9. Facts of the case regarding purchase of three tier sleeper tickets for 01.08.2018 and return ticket for 03.08.2018 are not disputed. It is also not in dispute neither before the District Commission nor before this Commission that the trains were late. The age of the complainant as well as his travelling from Amritsar to New Delhi and from New Delhi to Amritsar are also not disputed. From the appearance and by considering the age of the complainant and by believing his averments, as made in the complaint and the order passed therein as well as while hearing before this Commission, it does not appear that the complainant/respondent travelled in the train with leisurely mood. The facts mentioned in the complaint appear to be correct and the same have not been disputed, except the averments/objection raised by the appellants/opposite parties that no medical certificate was placed on record, showing the ailments and the medical certificate, which was placed on record, was of the subsequent period. Spending money for purchase of tickets and to travel a long distance on two occasions is not only an expenditure, which has been incurred by the complainant but harassment suffered First Appeal No.170 of 2021 by him while waiting for coming/going of the train is also not disputed. No cogent and convincing evidence has been produced by the appellants/opposite parties, either before the District Commission or before this Commission, as is clear from written submissions, to prove that the delay in departure/arrival of the trains was beyond their control.

    10. Recently, in similar set of circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.13288 of 2021 (Northern Western Railway & Anr. v. Sanjay Shukla) decided on 06.09.2021, upheld the findings recorded by the District Commission as well as State Commission, holding the Northern Western Railway deficient for delay in departure/arrival of train at the scheduled time and to pay compensation. It has been held in Para-6 (relevant portion) as under: ..No evidence at all was led by the railways explaining the delay and/or late arrival of train at Jammu. The railways were required to lead the evidence and explain the late arrival of train to establish and prove that delay occurred because of the reasons beyond their control. At least the railways were required to explain the delay which the railways failed. It cannot be disputed that every passengers time is precious and they might have booked the tickets for further journey, like in the present case from Jammu to Srinagar and thereafter further journey. Therefore, unless and until the evidence is laid explaining the delay and it is established and proved that delay occurred which was beyond their control First Appeal No.170 of 2021 and/or even there was some justification for delay, the railway is liable to pay the compensation for delay and late arrival of trains. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any evidence led to explain the delay, the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission have rightly observed and held that there was deficiency in service and therefore the railway is liable to pay the compensation to the passengercomplainant for the loss suffered and for the agony suffered. These are the days of competition and accountability. If the public transportation has to survive and compete with private players, they have to improve the system and their working culture. Citizen/ passenger cannot be at the mercy of the authorities/ administration. Somebody has to accept the responsibility. No interference of this Court is called for, in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

    11. As far as the stand taken by the appellants/opposite parties that waiting rooms are available at the railway station, the same does not appear to be convincing, as keeping in view the space of the waiting rooms vis--vis number of passengers, it is hardly believed that everyone who is waiting can get a place to sit.

    12. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of the Honble Supreme Court and by considering all the facts and findings recorded by the District Commission, we are not in disagreement with those findings. Accordingly, the grounds taken in the appeal are not based on any reasoning/justification and, as such, we do not find any illegality/infirmity in the findings recorded by the District Commission. First Appeal No.170 of 2021

    13. Therefore, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

    14. The appellants had deposited a sum of 11,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith. The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law. (JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER October 26, 2021. (Gurmeet S)

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Divisional Manager & Anr. v. Sujinder Singh
    (Oct 26, 2021)