4/28/2009 General Manager, South Eastern Rail…

Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer

General Manager, South Eastern Railway And ... vs Anand Prasad Sinha And Ors. on
28 July, 1989
Cites 2 docs
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Section 2 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

General Manager, South Eastern Railway And Ors. vs Anand Prasad Sinha And Ors. on
28/7/1989

JUDGMENT

V. Balakrishna Eradi, J.

(1) This is an appeal filed against the order of the State Commission,
Bihar dated 13th April 1989 in Complaint No. 3/SC/1989 on its file
jointly by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway Calcutta and the
Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern .Railway, Adra. District Purulia.
West Bengal. By the said order the State Commission has directed the
South Eastern Railway Administration to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 by
way of compensation to each of the two respondents for the
inconvenience and mental and physical suffering caused to them.

(2) The first respondent is Shri Anand Prasad Sinha, retired Judge of
the Patna High Court and the second respondent Smt. Madhuri Sinha is
his wife. Both of them boarded 24 Dn Hatia Patna Express on 17-4-1988
at Ranchi Station and travelled in a First Class Coupe of Coach No.
191. It would appear that the fans were not working in the said
compartment and though a complaint was made to a Conductor, no action
was taken to set right the fans at any time during the course of their
journey despile the first respondent having also complained to the
Railway Authorities at Bokaro and Gomoh Railway Stations, it was
further alleged in the petition of complaint filed by Shri Anand Prasad
Sinha that the iron shutters in the windows were not in working
condition and could not. be secured at night time and even the shutters
with glass panes could not be used since the glass wag missing. The
rexin of the upper berth was badly tom and there were two exposed rusty
nails which caused some injuries on the person of Respondent No. 2. It
was the case of the complainant; that due to bad condition of the Coupe
compartment he and his wife had to suffer great mental strain and
restlessness throughout the journey in addition to the physical
injuries sustained by ihe complainant's wife for which she had to take
medical treatment after reaching the destination, Along with the
petition of complaint an application was filed by the complainant
praying that an officer may be urgently deputed by the State Commission
for conducting a local inspection of the Coupe compartment in question
in order to ascertain the true stale of facts On the said application,
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/418959/ 1/4
4/28/2009 General Manager, South Eastern Rail…
the Stale Commission passed an order directing the Secretary of the
Commission to inspect the aforesaid coupe and to make a report about
its present physical condition in the context of the allegations made
in the petition of complaint. The Superintendent of Patna Railway
Station was directed to extend all facilities for the said inspection.
The Secretary accordingly inspected the said coupe compartment on May
3, 1988 in the presence of Shri Bharat Shankar Verma, Head Train
Examiner and he found that the coupe compartment in question was in a
very bad condition. There were no glass panel in the glass shutters of
the windows and the steel shutters could not be operated because of
defective levers. The condition of the upper berth was found to be
pitiable ince the rexin wan completely damaged and two nails were
exposed which were likely to cause injuries. Copies of the inspection
report were furnished by the State Commission to the parties on both
sides. No written objection was filed on behalf of the Railway
Authorities challenging the correctness and truth of the facts
mentioned by the Commissiner in his report. No attempt was also made
before the State Commission by the opposite parties (appellants herein)
to adduce any evidence in rebuttal of the contents of the
Commissioner's report. Thus the report of the Commissioner which fully
corroborated the averments contained in the petition of complaint stood
uncontradicted.

(3) A preliminary objection was raised by the opposite parties before

the State Commission contending that the complaint was not maintainable
dander the Consumer Protection Act since the passengers travelling by
train could not be regarded as 'consumers' and the Railway
Administration was not providing 'service' for consideration so as to
fall within the purview of the Act. The State Commission rejected this.
contention as totally, untenable and, held that the complaint was
maintainable under the Act. On a consideration of the pleadings and the
other materials available before it including the report of the
Commissioner deputed for the inspection of the coach, the Stale
Commission arrived at the finding that the allegations of fact
contained in the petition of complaint were proved to be fully true. On
the basis of the said finding the Commission further held that the
Railway Administration was liable to pay compensation to the
complainant and his wife for the mental and physical suffering caused
to them After recording these conclusion, the Commission without any
further discussion proceeded to issue a direction that the South
Eastern Railway Administration should pay a compensation of Rs.
10,000.00 each to the complaint and his wife. After issuing said
direction the Commission went on the observe thus :-

"INview of the status of the complainant and the condition in which

they were forced to travel, the aforesaid amount of compensation is
not sufficient but on the assurance given by Railway Administration,
that steps are being taken to improve the condition, we hope the
present amount of compensation will meet the ends of, justice."

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/418959/ 2/4
4/28/2009 General Manager, South Eastern Rail…
The legality and correctness of the decision of the State Commission
have been challenged before us by the appellants in this appeal.

(4) In the petition of appeal besides challenging the decision of the

State Commission on the merits, the appellants have reiterated the
objection taken by them before the State Commission regarding the
maintainability of the complaint, their contention being that the
passengers travelling by trains are not 'consumers' and the Railway
Administration cannot be regarded as rendering any 'service' so as to
fall within the ourview of the Consumer Protection Act. We are
constrained to observe that we are indeed surprised that such a plea
should have been forward by the South Eastern Railway Administration.
The expression 'service' contained in Section 2(l)(o)ofthe Act
specifically includes within its scope the provision of facilities in
connection with transport. The railway administration is providing
transport facilities to the public for consideration paid by them by
way of the fare, levied for the ticket. It is in fact one of the
largest public undertakings in the country intended to render service
to the public by providing transportation by rail through its large
network extending from Kanya Kumari in the South to Jamrnu Tawi in the
North. We have no hesitation to hold that passengers travelling by
trains on payment of the stipulated fare charged for the ticket are
'consumers' and the facility of transportation by. rail provided by the
railway administration is a 'service' rendered for consideration as
defined under the Act. The State Commission was therefore, perfectly
correct in overruling the preliminary objection raised by the opposite
parties before it and in proceeding to decide the case on the merits.
The findings of fact recorded by the State Commission are fully
supported by the materials available on record and no valid grounds
whatever have been made out by the appel lants justifying any
interference with those findings.

(5) However, we find there is considerable force in the contention

advanced on the side of the appellants that the State Commission has
acted rather arbitrarily in fixing the amount of compensation payable
to the respondents. There is no indication whatever in the order of the
State Commission as to the basis adopted by it for quantifying the
compensation to be awarded to the complainant and his wife. No
reference is to be found in the Commission's order to any of the well
settled principles governing. the fixation of compensation in cases
like the present one and one is left in complete dark" ness as to what
factors weighed with the State Commission in fixing the compensation at
the figure of Rs.10,000.00 each to the complainant as well as to his
wife. It is an established principle of law that the compensation
awarded must have a rational relation to the nature and extent of the
jury, inconvenience or physical and mental suffering caused to the
complainant by the action or omission of the opposite party. No attempt
was made by the State Commission to approach the question of
quantification of compensation from this correct perspective. The
status of the complainant was of little relevance in this context since
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/418959/ 3/4
4/28/2009 General Manager, South Eastern Rail…
every passenger who has paid for first class travel and who has been
subjected to inconvenience and suffering of a like nature on account of
defects in the compartment is entitled to similar treatment in the
nature of award of compensation irrespective of any question of status.

(6) Having given the matter our anxious consideration in the light of
all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the
compensation awarded by the State Commission is manifestly excessive,
in our considered view it would be reasonable and fair to fix the
compensation payable to each of the respondents before us at Rs.
1500.00 (Rupees one thousand five hundred) only.. We accordingly modify
the order of the State Commission by reducing the compensation payable
to the complainant and his wife to Rs. 1500.00 each. If, in enforcement
of the order of the State Commission, the respondents have recovered
from the appellants the full amount of compensation awarded to
them.under the impugned order, they will refund to the appellants
within one month from today the excess of Rs. 8,500.00 each drawn by
them.

(7) The appeal is allowed to be limited extent indicated above. The

parties will bear their respective costs.

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/418959/ 4/4