1. GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY
17 NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD,
KOLKATA-700001                                              ...........Petitioner(s)
                                         Versus    
1. SK. MANAB LUFTEE
28B,SAMSUL HUDA ROAD, P.S.- KARAYA
KOLKATA                                                           ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:    
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
     HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

Dated : 10 Aug 2015

 
1.       This Revision Petition, by the Eastern Railways, calls in question the correctness of the order, dated 03.06.2015, passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 69 of 2014.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 17.12.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-II, Kolkata (for short “the District Forum”) in CC No. 348 of 2012.  By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Railways for permitting unauthorized passengers in a reserved coach, which, according to the Complainant, resulted in the death of his mother because of the breathlessness on account of unabated smoking by the unauthorized travellers, the District Forum had directed the Railways to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹50,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and for not providing appropriate services to the Complainant and her mother (now deceased), on the date of journey at night on 05.09.2012, though they had confirmed tickets in the sleeper coach.  The District Forum had also awarded a sum of ₹10,000/- as costs, with a default clause to the effect that if the said amounts were not paid to the Complainant within 30 days of the date of the order, they shall pay to him punitive damages @ ₹500/- per day.

2.       Having heard learned Counsel for the Railways, we are of the view that having regard to the fact that both the Forums below have returned a concurrent finding of fact that there were unauthorized passengers in a reserved coach and the Ticket Collector did not take any steps to de-board them, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railways and further bearing in mind the quantum of the compensation awarded, i.e. ₹50,000/-, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of our Revisional Jurisdiction.  We may add that in the written version filed on behalf of the Railways, there was neither denial about the presence of the unauthorized passengers in a reserved sleeper coach nor any indication as to what steps were taken to remove them from the coach.  We are in complete agreement with the lower Fora that allowing any person without reservation, to travel in a reserved coach is per se deficiency in service on the part of the Railways to all the passengers who travel on bonafide reserved tickets.

3.       At this stage, it is pointed out by learned Counsel for the Railways that since the order passed by the District Forum had been challenged before the State Commission within a period of 30 days and the State Commission having granted interim stay of the said order, subject to the Railways depositing 50% of the amount awarded, within the time granted to it by the State Commission, it may be clarified that the Railways will not be liable to pay the afore-stated punitive damages to the Complainant.  We find substance in the contention urged on behalf of the Railways.  We order accordingly, without issuing notice to the Complainant as the said direction, being a default stipulation, it did not come into play because the State Commission had stayed the operation of the said order, on being challenged within a period of 30 days.       

4.       Accordingly, while dismissing the Revision Petition, we clarify that if the Railways had made the requisite deposit, as directed by the State Commission within the time granted by it, the said default clause shall not be enforceable.