1. UNION OF INDIA & 3 ORS.
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
HUBLI                                                                 ...........Petitioner(s)
                                                  Versus    
1. N. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O LATE NANJAPPA,
C/O RUDRASWAMI,
NO. 1319, 1ST CROSS, NEHRU NAGAR,
MANDYA
KARNATAKA                                                    ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:    
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

Dated : 02 Mar 2017

JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

     The complainant/respondent, an Advocate by profession boarded Chamundi Express at Mandya Railway Station on 9.12.2010, for going from Mandya to Bangalore. The train which was scheduled to Mandya Railway Station at 7.35 a.m. left a little late at about 7.55 a.m. The train allegedly arrived at Bangalore at about 10.25 a.m., after a delay of about 45 minutes.  On the way from Mandya to Bangalore, the train had as many as four unscheduled stops. Alleging financial loss and harassment on account of the late arrival  of the train   at Bangalore, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way a consumer complaint seeking compensation from the Indian Railways.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioners primarily on the ground that since another train being Train No.231 which was scheduled to depart from Mysore Railway Station at 0550 hours left at 0705 hours on account of technical/unavoidable reason. Train No.6215 Mandya Express, on which the complainant travelled from Mandya to Bangalore, was given four unscheduled halts in order to facilitate thousands of daily passengers who were to get down at those stations. As a result, the train arrived somewhat late at Bangalore Railway Station, it having arrived at 1018 hours and not 1025 hours as claimed by the complainant. It was also stated in the reply filed by the petitioners that even before the train left Mandya Railway Station, announcements were made informing the passengers about the unscheduled halts the train was to take.

3.      The District Forum partly allowed the complaint granting compensation quantified at Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5.      The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the affidavit of the Station Master filed before the District Forum as well as the official record whereby a decision was taken to permit Mandya to have four unscheduled stops on account of late running of Train No.231 and for the convenience of the public and the commuters. It is evident from a perusal of the affidavit of the Station Master and the above-referred record that since Train No.231 was running late, a conscious decision was taken to give four unscheduled halts to Mandya Express in order to enable the hundreds of the passengers who were to travel to Train No.231 to get down at their destination. The said decision having been taken in larger public interest for the benefit of hundreds of workers who would otherwise have been late in reporting on their duty and, therefore, would have lost wages on account of late reporting, cannot be said to be a deficiency in rendering services to the passengers travelling on Mandya Express including the complainant. Therefore, the award of compensation was not at all justified. I, therefore, need not go into the question as to whether the complainant was entitled to any monetary compensation without having actually proved the alleged financial loss to him.

6.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.