Journey ‘disrupted’ due to farmer protests, man wins Rs 2 lakh payout from Railways

“Public authorities are equally accountable under the Consumer Protection Act where deficiency in service is established. Merely because compensation is payable from public funds cannot be a ground to deny legitimate relief to consumers who have suffered due to deficient service,” the commission held on July 31.

On September 22, 2017, a district commission ordered the railways to pay Rs 25,000 towards each family member, totalling Rs 2 lakh, aside from Rs 16,000 towards litigation costs.

According to the complaint, the man booked train tickets and paid Rs 11,629 from Delhi to Amritsar in Swarna Shatabdi Express. On April 27, 2015, the family boarded the train at New Delhi Railway Station, and it reached Beas Railway Station on time at around 1 pm, where it was supposed to halt for two minutes.

However, the train was stated to have remained at the Beas Station for hours, and that too without any catering services, water supply, and announcement by the railway authorities. After a four-hour halt, the man claimed, an announcement was made at the station that instead of going to Amritsar the train would return to Delhi from Beas. The passengers were reportedly told must make their own arrangements for reaching Amritsar. He further claimed to have paid Rs 4,000 to an auto driver to take the family to Amritsar.

The man claimed to have sent a legal notice to the authorities, but after not getting a response, he filed a complaint before the district commission.

‘Unforeseen situation’

While noting that the Railways cannot be held responsible for “an unforeseen law-and-order situation”, the commission expressed its reservation over the manner in which the administration had “responded to the situation”. According to the commission, the railway administration did not show anything to show that adequate arrangements were made for assisting stranded passengers or that sufficient information was communicated to them promptly.

The commission noted that a refund of the fare may be claimed, but the man’s complaint was not confined to refund alone as he alleged deficiency in service, inconvenience and additional expenditure faced by his family owing to the railway administration’s “failure” to make appropriate arrangements.

The ruling held that the incident had caused the complainant “avoidable inconvenience, harassment and additional financial burden because of the lack of timely information and absence of proper assistance” and upheld the compensation order.

‘No negligence’

Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Verma, appearing for the railway authorities, submitted that on the day of the onward journey, the railway services in Punjab were severely disrupted due to the farmers’ agitation, which had turned violent and affected the Jalandhar-Amritsar section.

Consequently, the train was terminated at Beas for the safety of passengers. The counsel urged that it was an unforeseen circumstance which was beyond the control of the railway administration and, therefore, no negligence or deficiency in service can be attributed to them.

It was, therefore, argued that passengers were not entitled to any relief because they did not file a Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) with Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC). The counsel also submitted that railways was a public utility service and compensation would be paid from the public exchequer. Therefore, public funds should not be spent unless a clear case of negligence and deficiency in service is established.

Advocate MK Verma, appearing for the man and his family, refuted the claims of the railways.

Takeaway

The ruling establishes the obligation of public service providers like railways to ensure proper treatment of their passengers.  For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Delhi: 1800-11-4000) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Don’t miss out on these stories

Cold storage sells farmer’s 48,000 kg carrots without consent, ordered to pay Rs 31.5 lakh

Woman fitted with Rs 2.45 lakh ‘defective dentures’, dentist ordered to pay Rs 3.15 lakh

Man’s head injury from overhead cabin door midair wins him Rs 2.03 lakh payout