1

Consumer Protection Digeston

Railway Services

Brief case loss - A brief case with clothes etc. deposited in Railway Cloakroom was delivered to a wrong person - Authorities directed to pay Rs. 11,200 as compensation - 1999(2) CPC 272 T.N.

Car theft - Complainant’s car stolen from Railway parking - Both Railway and Contractor held liable for compensation - 1994(2) CPC 353 Delhi

Chain snatching in train - Gold chain with mangulsatra worn by petitioner was snatched from adjacent exit door of the coach – Deficient service proved – Compensation of Rs. 25,000 awarded in place of Rs. 5,000 – 2009(1) CPC 333 N.C.

Change of railway route - Route of train was changed due to repairs of railway line – Information was given by publication in newspapers – Ticket holder not entitled to any compensation except refund of railway fare – 2010(1) CPC 307 Pb.

Compensation - Amount of compensation Rs. 55,000 for deficient service for non providing amenities held on higher side - Reduced to Rs. 10,000 only - 2003(2) CPC 48 N.C.

--Amount of compensation should not be granted on a higher side - 1997(2) CPC 548 Delhi —Cancellation of train without notice to ticket holder, in name of so called security reasons - Complainant held

entitled compensation of Rs. 9,000 - Railway Administration v. K.S. Malka, 2004(2) CPC 655 Chd.—Compensation based upon indirect cause and speulition alone not permissible - 2001(2) CPC 382 M.P.—Compensation if found on higher side can be reduced by Appellate Authority to lesser amount - General

Manager, South Central Railway v. K. Abdul Waris, 2000(1) CPC 221 A.P. --Complainant’s luggage stolen from coach where unauthorized person had entered in reserved compartment –

Railway Authorities directed to pay Rs. 7,000 with cost and interest – 2010(1) CPC 429 N.C.—Compensation should have a rationale to the nature and extent of injury or suffering caused to the complainant -

General Manager, South Eastern Railway v. Anand Prasad Sinha, 1991 CPC 22 N.C.

--Complainant, an old lady was not arranged any seat despite reservation causing great mental agony - Railway authority directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation - 2001(2) CPC 468 Chd.

—Complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 70,000 as his luggage was stolen during railway journey - Compensation of Rs. 20,000 enhanced to Rs. 40,000 in revision - 2006(2) CPC 28 N.C.

--Complainant’s valuables stolen during traveling but not due to negligence of railway staff but due to contributing negligence of complainant – Railway staff held liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- only for their inefficient dealing and not for loss of valuables – 2011(1) CPC 88 N.C.

—Complainant suffered from fever and cold due to unbearable cold in railway coach - Authorities directed to pay Rs. 6,000 with 15% interest to complainant - 1998(2) CPC 377 Pb.

—Complainant suffered huge loss due to non reservation of seats by negligence on part of Railway authorities - Authorities directed to pay total sum of Rs. 62,000 to 4 passengers - 2000(1) CPC 263 H.P.

—Complainants luggage containing valuable article stole during Railway journey - Compensation of Rs. 62,000 including price of article is just and proper - 2003(2) CPC 603 Ker.

—Complainant’s insured car stolen from Railway parking - Compensation comes equal to car price minus insurance amount - 1994(2) CPC 353 Delhi

—District Forum determined Rs. 10,000 as compensation for loss of suitcase - Demand of Rs. 50,000 without elaborate enquiry cannot be enhanced - Bharti Arora (Ku.) v. G.M. Central Railway, 2003(2) CPC 517 M.P.

—Neither conductor nor coach attendant was present in compartment at the time of dacoity of ornaments - Railway authorities directed to pay Rs. 50,000 - 2008(2) CPC 97 N.C.

—Passenger with ticket insured due to collapse of footpath over Railway bridge - Railways directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation - 2008(1) CPC 277 N.C.

—Railway authority failed to explain as to why 1st class coach was not attached to the train for which complainant was having a ticket - Respondent directed to pay Rs.5,000 in lump sum as compensation - 2007(1) CPC 318 M.P.

2

—Railway passengers can be awarded only reasonable compensation for loss of articles and not the total value of lost articles - R. Ramaswamy v. Union of India, 1997(1) CPC 557 Goa

—Railway - The Railways being a public utility service, they should be prompt to remove the difficulties of the passengers - 1992 CPC 72 H.P.

—Removal of baggage from berth to accommodate a Minister - Difference in fare alongwith compensation of Rs. 11,000 allowed - Minister of Railways v. G. L. Sanghi, 2005(2) CPC 48 Delhi

—TTE slapped penalty of Rs. 390 on complainant in violation of MST first class pass and supplementary ticket - Railways directed to pay consolidated damage of Rs. 10,000/ with cost - 2007(2) CPC 52 N.C.

—Victim of railway accident died due to negligence of station master was a student of B.E. Computer Course - Compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs justified - M. Chidambaram v. Southern Railways, 2001(1) CPC 388 Kar.

—Complainant having telephone of Railway Deptt. at his house in official capacity - Complaint filed by him personal capacity not maintainable - 2006(1) CPC 180 Hr.

—Complaint filed without impleading other 48 passengers nor any authority on their behalf was produced - Complaint not maintainable on behalf of other passengers - 2000(2) CPC 23 Meghalaya

—A person claiming refund of security deposited for claiming delivery of goods from Railways is not a consumer - Union of India, Northern Railway v. M/s Satish Kumar Rajinder Kumar, 2000(1) CPC 494 Pb.

Consumer - Train passengers travelling by train on payment of the stipulated fare, come under the definition of a consumer - 1991 CPC 22 N.C.

Consumer dispute - Demand of refund of amount deposited as a security with Railways is not a consumer dispute - Matter covered under the Railways Act - 2000(1) CPC 494 Pb.

Dacoity in train - Neither conductor nor coach attendant was present in compartment at the time of dacoity of ornaments - Railway authorities directed to pay Rs. 50,000 - 2008(2) CPC 97 N.C.

Defective berths – Reservation cancelled – Berths had developed defects – No alternative arrangement made by Railways – Necessary arrangements should have been made in time – Deficient service proved – Order of awarding compensation by District Forum upheld - 2010(3) CPC 288 Delhi

Deficiency in Service - Absence of police constable or T.T.E. in compartment where theft had taken place - Railway is guilty of deficiency in service - 2005(1) CPC 227 N.C.

Directions - Consumer Forum can issue directions under Section 14 (1) (e) of C.P. Act to Railway Authorities to remove any defect in rendering service to travellers - 1998(2) CPC 602 A.P.

—Directions can be issued to Railway to trace out the lost wagon with goods of complainant - 1994(1) CPC 99 Orissa

Evidence - Adverse inference should be drawn against the person not producing the document in his possession - 1994(1) CPC 618 Delhi

Excess fare - Lack of amenities alleged by traveler – Excess charging of fare also alleged – Forum allowed refund of excess amount with compensation of Rs. 1 lacs – Refund of excess amount only is justified - 2010(3) CPC 470 N.C.

Gold Chain snatching - Complainant’s gold chain snatched by miscreants during railway journey - Railways directed to pay Rs. 15,840 as cost of jewellery with compensation of Rs. 10,000 - 2005(1) CPC 630 N.C.

Hiring of service - A person claiming refund of security deposited for claiming delivery of goods from Railways is not a consumer - 2000(1) CPC 494 Pb.

Impleadment - Objection regarding misjoinder of parties not taken earlier - Appeal cannot be dismissed on this technical objection - General Manager, Eastern Railways v. Smt. Malti Gupta, 2000(1) CPC 674 M.P.

Joinder of causes of action - Joinder of causes of action between same parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings is permissible - 2001(2) CPC 213 Guj.

Liability - Complainant’s son suffered injuries while getting down from train - Railway authorities not liable for negligence - Union of India v. Amar Nath Gupta, 1999(2) CPC 435 Pb.

--Reservation cancelled – Berths had developed defects – No alternative arrangement made by Railways – Necessary arrangements should have been made in time – Deficient service proved – Order of awarding compensation by District Forum upheld - 2010(3) CPC 288 Delhi

Loss of luggage - Complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 70,000 as his luggage was stolen during railway journey - Compensation of Rs. 20,000 enhanced to Rs. 40,000 in revision - 2006(2) CPC 28 N.C.

3

Luggage theft - Luggage were lost which allegedly were entrusted to a coolie who is not an employee of Railways – Complainant not entitled to any relief – 2010(1) CPC 630 U.P.

Male/Female ticket - Ticket Collector charged Rs. 594 as penalty for wrong use of ticket for seat for “male” instead of “female” - O.P. not producing original record - Authorities guilty of deficiency in service - 2004(1) CPC 297 Pb.

Misleading advertisements - O.P. displayed misleading liquor advertisement on railway coach against Railway guidelines inducing young generation from cold drinks to beer - O.P directed to issue corrective advertisement - 2007(2) CPC 155 N.C.

Natural justice - Railway ticket wrongly punched - Recovery of compensation from an official not impleaded unjustified - Sneh Lata (Mrs.) v. Dilbagh Singh, 2003(1) CPC 277 Pb.

Negligence by Railways - First class coach not made available to complainant making payment for the same - Grant of compensation to complainant justified - 2000(2) CPC 691 Delhi

Non prosecution - Complaint against Railway keeping dirty platform - Complaint not prosecuted before District Forum - Relief declined in appeal - 1998(2) CPC 272 Chd.

Parking - Complainant parked bicycle at Railway cycle stand - No material to hold that respondents had undertaken any responsibility of its safe custody - Complaint dismissed - 2006(1) CPC 93 Chattisgarh

Passenger’s loss - Unruly mob looted complainant’s valuables on Amedkar’s day which was a part of recurring phenomenon every year - Railway is at fault for not taking precautionary measure - 2004(1) CPC 673 S.C.

Passenger’s luggage - Loss of luggage of a passenger from a reserved coach - Railway held liable for deficiency in service - Railway Act not applicable - 2005(2) CPC 182 N.C.

Penalty - Persons holding 2nd class season ticket traveling by Super fast train - Imposition of penalty justified - 1996(2) CPC 208 N.C.

Pleading - No relief can be awarded on the mere allegations made in the complaint - Production of material evidence is essential - 1994(2) CPC 195 N.C.

Railway accident - Deceased fell from running train due to his carelessness - Railways cannot be held liable - Miro Devi (Smt.) v. Union of India, 1994(2) CPC 416 N.C.

—Insured died in Rail accident - Unfounded allegation of suicide by insurer for repudiation of claim unjustified - Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Shama Rani, 2000(1) CPC 161 Pb.

Railway authorities - Railway authorities failed to reserve seats despite payment for return journey ticket made one month in advance - Consumer jurisdiction not ousted by Railway Claim Tribunal Act - 2000(1) CPC 263 H.P.

Railway berth - Berth reserved for complainant was wrongly allotted to third party - Complainant was awarded Rs. 2,000 as compensation - Mansukhbhai and Anr. v. The General Manager, Western Railway, 1995(2) CPC 468 Maha.

—Complainant’s son having found his booked berth already occupied - He got down from train in confusion and sustained injury - No negligence on part of Railways proved - Relief declined - 1999(2) CPC 435 Pb.

—Complainant’s baggage removed unauthorisedly from berth to accommodate the Minister - Railways committed gross negligence - Minister of Railways v. G. L. Sanghi, 2005(2) CPC 48 Delhi

—Traveller got reservation of 2nd A. C. Sleeper - Seats were not provided - Railway Authority directed to compensate the complainant - 1999(2) CPC 306 M.P.

Railway claim - Claim about under charges for excess weight covered under Section 13 (1) of the Railway Claims Act - Section 15 of the Act ousts the jurisdiction of other Tribunals - 1994(2) CPC 407 Pb.

—Matter covered under the Railway Tribunal Act - Jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act barred - Union of India through General Manager, Madras v. M. Adaikalam, 1993 CPC 676 N.C.

Railway coach - Complainant suffered from fever and cold due to unbearable cold in railway coach - Authorities directed to pay Rs. 6,000 with 15% interest to complainant - 1998(2) CPC 377 Pb.

Railway fare - Complainant held entitled to refund of whole fare where whole journey could not be completed due to unforeseen rush in the train - Dr. A.V. Huilgol v. Union of India, 1994(1) CPC 95 Kar.

—Distance between two railway stations was 70 Km. with 10 stops on the route - Fair cannot be charged for express train but for passenger train - 2005(2) CPC 315 N.C.

Railway journey - A traveller having monthly season ticket is not entitled to travel in a super fast train without supper charge ticket - Sat Narain v. Station Superintendent, 1998(1) CPC 440 Hr.

4

—Complainant having reserved 2nd class berth had to travel by general compartment with great harassment - Railway authorities directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000 instead of Rs. 20,000 - 2000(1) CPC 221 A.P.

—Complainant’s suitcase stolen by miscreants from reserved compartment - Railways held liable to compensate to complainant - 2004(1) CPC 486 N.C.

—Complainant’s valuable luggage looted by violent mob - State Commission rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 1,41,756 - Order of National Commission set aside - 2004(1) CPC 673 S.C.

—Complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 70,000 as his luggage was stolen during railway journey - Compensation of Rs. 20,000 enhanced to Rs. 40,000 in revision - 2006(2) CPC 28 N.C.

—Complainant’s valuable luggage looted by violent mob - State Commission rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 1,41,756 - Order of National Commission set aside - 2004(1) CPC 673 SC

—Journey disallowed despite reservation of seat after payment - Railway authorities liable for deficient service - Union of India v. Shri Sain Dass Sobti, 2003(1) CPC 447 Chd.

—Non availability of water and electricity during railway journey - Compensation of Rs. 7,000 awarded to complainant - Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway v. Mr. N. Ramakrishnan, 2001(2) CPC 213 Guj.

—Ticket Collector charged Rs. 594 as penalty for wrong use of ticket for seat for “male” instead of “female” - O.P. not producing original record - Authorities guilty of deficiency in service - 2004(1) CPC 297 Pb.

—Traveller allowed to travel by another train on same ticket as Ist train was late - Imposition of penalty amounts to deficiency in service - 1998(2) CPC 314 N.C.

Railway liability - Railway Department cannot be held liable for loss of baggage which is not booked nor protected by passenger - 2005(2) CPC 172 N.C.

—Loss of luggage of a passenger from a reserved coach - Railway held liable for deficiency in service - Railway Act not applicable - 2005(2) CPC 182 N.C.

Railways negligence - Unauthorised person entered the reserved compartment of complainant and took away her luggage - Railway Authorities directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000 with 12% interest - 2000(1) CPC 674 M.P.

Railway over bridge - It is the duty of Railway staff to maintain properly the footpath over bridge (FOB) and platform in the interest of ticket holder passengers - 2008(1) CPC 277 N.C.

Railway parking - Complainant’s car stolen from Railway parking - Both Railway and Contractor held liable for compensation - Davinder Mohan Verma v. General Manager, Northern Railway, 1994(2) CPC 353 Delhi

Railway pass - TTE slapped penalty of Rs. 390 on complainant in violation of MST first class pass and supplementary ticket - Railways directed to pay consolidated damage of Rs. 10,000 with cost - 2007(2) CPC 52 N.C.

Railway platform - Complaint against Railway keeping dirty platform - Complaint not prosecuted before District Forum - Relief declined in appeal - 1998(2) CPC 272 Chd.

Railway reservation - Complainant suffered huge loss due to non reservation of seats by negligence on part of Railway authorities - Authorities directed to pay total sum of Rs. 62,000 to 4 passengers - 2000(1) CPC 263 H.P.

Railway route - Rerouting of a train falls within the province of Railway Management - Not a service under C.P. Act - 1996(1) CPC 190 N.C.

Railway season ticket - A traveller having monthly reason ticket is not entitled to travel in a super fast train without supper charge ticket - Sat Narain v. Station Superintendent, 1998(1) CPC 440 Hr.

Railway service - A brief case with clothes etc. deposited in Railway Cloakroom was delivered to a wrong person - Authorities directed to pay Rs. 11,200 as compensation - 1999(2) CPC 272 T.N.

-- As per rule of Coaching Tarif railways not accountable for late arrival and departure of train - Consumer fora has no jurisdiction to decide the matter - 2002(1) CPC 499 Guj.

—Absence of police constable or T.T.E. in compartment where theft had taken place - Railway is guilty of deficiency in service - 2005(1) CPC 227 N.C.

—Accommodation provided in coach against a chair car ticket - No basic difference between the two - No deficiency in service proved - 2005(1) CPC 205 N.C.

—Allegation of non attachment of coach by complainant as alleged by complainant’s Advocate was found to be false in railway inquiry - Complaint by Fora below rightly dismissed - Relief declined - 2008(2) CPC 242 N.C.

—Amount of compensation Rs. 55,000 for deficient service for non providing amenities held on higher side - Reduced to Rs. 10,000 only - 2003(2) CPC 48 N.C.

5

—Cancellation of train without notice to ticket holder, in name of so called security reasons - Complainant held entitled compensation of Rs. 9,000 - Railway Administration v. K.S. Malka, 2004(2) CPC 655 Chd.

—Classification of trains without providing special amenities - Authorities directed to follow proper guidelines - 1993 CPC 830 N.C.

—Complainant along with his daughter kept standing in compartment throughout the night - Railway liable for negligence - Rama Kant Aggarwal v. General Manager, Norther Railway, 1994(1) CPC 618 Delhi

—Complainant being a senior citizen claimed compensation for allotment of upper berth - Submission is without merit - Relief declined - 2007(1) CPC 459 N.C.

—Complainant could not get reserved seat due to rush of passengers - Railway held not liable - Dr. A.V. Huilgol v. Union of India, 1994(1) CPC 95 Kar.

--Complainant’s valuables stolen during traveling but not due to negligence of railway staff but due to contributing negligence of complainant – Railway staff held liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- only for their inefficient dealing and not for loss of valuables – 2011(1) CPC 88 N.C.

—Complainant failed to produce photo identity in original but only Xerox copy by him - Imposing penalty by Railway Staff held to be justified - 2007(1) CPC 314 Pondicherry

—Complainant got a berth reserved - Berth without any cushion or fan and sufficient light - Complainant held entitled to compensation - Union of India v. Ramasarey, 1994(2) CPC 208 U.P.

—Complainant had to face great difficulty in getting into train due to non provision of number of plates to sleeper coaches - Railways directed to do the needful - 2004(2) CPC 573 N.C.

—Complainant had to travel, keeping on standing due to negligence of the Guard - Held entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,000 - 1994(2) CPC 572 N.C.

—Complainant missed train and suffered mental agony due to negligence of Railway Clerk - Awarded compensation of Rs. 7,500 - S. Pushpavanam v. The G. M. Southern Railways, 1991 CPC 518 T.N.

—Complainant not provided Sleeper Coach despite confirmed reservation - Deficiency in service well established - Senior Superintendent, Northern Railway v. Mrs. Prem Sood, 2001(1) CPC 542 Delhi

—Complainant on enquiry was told that train was late by one hour - Train missed due to arrival in time - Railway not at fault - General Manager, South Eastern Railway v. M. Gourinath, 1998(1) CPC 471 Orissa

—Complainant, an old lady was not arranged any seat despite reservation causing great mental agony - Railway authority directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation - 2001(2) CPC 468 Chd.

--Complainant’s daughter while passing through interconnected passage from one compartment to another died - Railways to pay Rs. 2,25,000 as compensation - 1997(1) CPC 420 N.C.

--Complainant’s father fell in between track – Leg cut, died due to excessive bleeding – Such untoward incident was entertainable only by Railway Claim Tribunal and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction - 2010(2) CPC 593 N.C.

—Complainant’s gold chain snatched by miscreants during railway journey - Railways directed to pay Rs. 15,840 as cost of jewellery with compensation of Rs. 10,000 - 2005(1) CPC 630 N.C.

—Complainant’s hand injured due to fall of defective shutter of window of train compartment - Compensation of Rs.40,000 with 9% interest to complainant justified - 2001(2) CPC 382 M.P.

--Complainant’s luggage stolen from coach where unauthorized person had entered in reserved compartment – Railway Authorities directed to pay Rs. 7,000 with cost and interest – 2010(1) CPC 429 N.C.

—Complainant’s suitcase found missing from cloak room - Railway authorities directed to pay Rs. 10,000 to complainant - Northern Railway v. Lt. Col. N.C. Mitra, 1997(2) CPC 548 Delhi

—Complainant’s tier-berth wrongfully allotted to some one else due to negligence of Railway Clerk - Rs. 2,000 allowed as compensation to Complainant - 1991 CPC 601 (2) Delhi

—Complainants luggage taken away by unauthorised passengers - Complainant is a consumer under the Act to file a complaint - Section 100 of Railway Act is no bar - 2003(2) CPC 603 Ker.

—Complaint after purchase of ticket could not travel as train was late by six hours. Refund of ticked amount disallowed - Railways rightly the directed to refund amount with compensation of Rs. 7000 - 2007(2) CPC 236 N.C.

—Complaint filed without impleading other 48 passengers nor any authority on their behalf was produced - Complaint not maintainable on behalf of other passengers - 2000(2) CPC 23 Meghalaya

—Complaint regarding supply of drinking water in satchel - Railways authorities directed to supply water in suitable containers - 1991 CPC 493 T.N.

—Concession in ticket denied to handicapped person due to unsigned Medical Certificate - Railways not guilty of deficient service - Union of India v. Mukesh Khanna, 2006(1) CPC 108 Pb.

—Darkness of Railway Station resulted in falling down of complainant causing leg fracture - Railways directed to pay Rs. One lakh compensation - 1998(2) CPC 41 Bihar

6

—Death due to accident caused by service train running without light - Complainant allowed Rs. 4,75,200 as compensation - Plea of contradictory negligence rejected - Rakesh Saini v. Union of India, 2004(2) CPC 404 Delhi H.C.

—Death of passenger due to heart failure during journey - Railways not liable for deficiency in service - Prem Jain v. Union of India, 1997(2) CPC 507 Pb.

—Defect in boggy due to leaking roofs - Authorities directed to remove inconvenience - 1991 CPC 503 Orissa—Deficiencies in maintenance of the compartment like water, light, fan and toilets etc. and non-providing of pantry

car in the long journey by express train - District Forum rightly awarded the compensation and cost directing to attach pantry car in super fast trains - 2007(2) CPC 219 A.P.

—Delay of 10 Hours in departure - Complainant-passengers awarded Rs. 500 each for suffering loss - Union of India v. Kedarnath Jena, 1998(1) CPC 585 Orissa

--Delay of 4 hours in arrival of train due to derailment of a goods train - Railway Authorities not liable for deficient service - 2001(2) CPC 481 Chd.

—Demand of refund of amount deposited as a security with Railways is not a consumer dispute - Matter covered under the provisions of Indian Railways Act - 2000(1) CPC 494 Pb.

—Directions can be issued to railway to trace out the lost wagon with goods of complainant - 1994(1) CPC 99 Orissa

—Dispute between railways and its employees regarding replacement of defective articles is not a consumer dispute - Sri Surendra Nath Lal v. T.D. Acharya, Chief Personnel/welfare Inspector, NER, 1996(1) CPC 512 Bihar

—Dog in compartment - A separate arrangement should be made - Should not be carried in passanger’s compartments - 1992 CPC 410 N.C.

—Entire amount charged by TTE from passenger - Railway directed to pay Rs. 1500 as compensation/Cost - 2003(2) CPC 71 N.C.

--Faulty construction of drinking water hydrant at Railway platform caused death of deceased – Consumer jurisdiction is not ousted by Railways Act or Railway Claims Tribunal Act – Relief granted – 2010(1) CPC 690 N.C.

—First class coach not made available to complainant making payment for the same - Grant of compensation to complainant justified - 2000(2) CPC 691 Delhi

—First Class Compartment was booked but could not be attached due to an accident - Railways to pay moderate compensation - 1997(2) CPC 648 Pb.

--Gold chain with mangulsatra worn by petitioner was snatched from adjacent exit door of the coach – Deficient service proved – Compensation of Rs. 25,000 awarded in place of Rs. 5,000 – 2009(1) CPC 333 N.C.

—Golden chain of complainant was removed by miscreants due to lack of electric light in the coach - Railways authorities directed to pay Rs. 32,000 as cost of gold chain and compensation - 2003(1) CPC 638 N.C.

—Goods transported through Railway not reached destination - Claim is tribal by Railway Claim Tribunal - Complaint dismissed - 2004(2) CPC 197 U.P.

--Lack of amenities alleged by traveler – Excess charging of fare also alleged – Forum allowed refund of excess amount with compensation of Rs. 1 lacs – Refund of excess amount only is justified - 2010(3) CPC 470 N.C.

—Loss as a result of non-reservation of berth due to negligence of Railway Staff - Compensation of Rs. 4,000 allowed to complainant - 1993 CPC 564 H.P.

—Loss to consignment caused for non delivery due negligence of railway staff - Remedy lies under Railways Claim Tribunal Act and not under the C.P. Act - 2003(1) CPC 227 Jhar.

--Luggage stolen from coach due to negligence of coach attendant - Railway authorities liable for deficiency in service - 2006(1) CPC 46 N.C.

--Luggage were lost which allegedly were entrusted to a coolie who is not an employee of Railways – Complainant not entitled to any relief – 2010(1) CPC 630 U.P.

—Matter covered under Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Consumer jurisdiction ousted by virtue of Section 15 of the Railways Act - 1993 CPC 810 Pb.

—Neither conductor nor coach attendant was present in compartment at the time of dacoity of ornaments - Railway authorities directed to pay Rs. 50,000 - 2008(2) CPC 97 N.C.

—Non supply of drinking water in train constitutes a deficiency in service - 1993 CPC 763 N.C.—OP filed an affidavit challenging the finding of State Commission about entrusting of goods to conductor of coach

- Impugned order set aside - 2007(1) CPC 306 N.C. —Ornaments snatched by a person during railway journey - Railway authorities directed to pay compensation of Rs.

25,000 as per value of ornaments - 2008(3) CPC 231 N.C.

7

—Overcharging from passenger by Railway - Complaint covered under Railway Claims Tribunal Act - Consumer jurisdiction barred - Union of India v. Sudarshan Kapoor, 1998(2) CPC 522 Pb.

—Passenger cannot be deprived of a confirmed reservation of berth except for special reasons by Railway authorities - 2000(2) CPC 648 N.C.

—Passenger with ticket insured due to collapse of footpath over Railway bridge - Railways directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000 as compensation - 2008(1) CPC 277 N.C.

—Passengers having ticket for IInd Class berth - Unauthorised people occupied the seats - It constitutes deficiency in service on the part of Railways - 2006(1) CPC 95 Raj.

—Passengers put to suffering by not providing of pantry car between two stations - Railway Authorities held liable to compensate the complainant - 1993 CPC 763 N.C.

—Penalties can be charged from a passenger only when is trying to board or to alight from a train without ticket - 1998(1) CPC 449 Pb.

—Persons holding 2nd class season ticket traveling by Superfast train - Imposition of penalty justified - 1996(2) CPC 208 N.C.

—Poor maintenance of Coaches, shutter of windows broken with certain others defects - Railway held liable for deficiency in service - 2005(1) CPC 615 Delhi

—Provisions of Railway Claim Tribunal Act is no bar to provisions of C.P. Act - 1998(1) CPC 448 Hr.

--Railway Administration not checking entry of unauthorised persons occupying reserved compartment - Held, liable for deficiency in service - 1996(2) CPC 266 N.C.

—Railway Authorities - Arbitrariness in allotment of seats - Railway authorities are responsible for the conduct of their employees - Complainant awarded Rs. 1,000 as compensation with cost of Rs. 300 - 1991 CPC 450 T.N.

—Railway authorities failed to reserve berth on priority basis without any explanation - Held liable for deficiency in service - 2000(2) CPC 646 N.C.

—Railway authorities should fix metallic plate number on compartment instead of writing numbers with chalk to avoid suffering of passengers - 1998(2) CPC 602 A.P.

—Railway authority failed to explain as to why 1st class coach was not attached to the train for which complainant was having a ticket - Respondent directed to pay Rs.5,000 in lump sum as compensation - 2007(1) CPC 318 M.P.

—Railway passengers can be awarded only reasonable compensation for loss of articles and not the total value of lost articles - R. Ramaswamy v. Union of India, 1997(1) CPC 557 Goa

—Railways authorities should take action against the erring employee who caused unnecessary harassment to the passenger complainant - 1993 CPC 523 U.P.

--Reservation cancelled – Berths had developed defects – No alternative arrangement made by Railways – Necessary arrangements should have been made in time – Deficient service proved – Order of awarding compensation by District Forum upheld - 2010(3) CPC 288 Delhi

—Reserved coach not attached - Two confirmed Berths not provided in another coach - Deficiency in service proved and granted Rs. 7,000 as compensation - 2008(1) CPC 543 N.C.

--Route of train was changed due to repairs of railway line – Information was given by publication in newspapers – Ticket holder not entitled to any compensation except refund of railway fare – 2010(1) CPC 307 Pb.

—Rush in compartment - Complainant/commuters suffered due to heavy rush in compartments - Railway authorities directed to make necessary arrangements - 1991 CPC 503 Orissa

—Scooter stolen from Railway Scooter Stand - Railways held liable to pay scooter price to complainant - 1995(1) CPC 389 M.P.

—Seat allotment - Railway authorities held liable for gross negligence in allotment of seats which caused hardship to complainants - 1991 CPC 569 T.N.

—Seat reserved in complainant’s name, wrongly allotted to another passenger - Railways held liable for deficiency in service - 1997(2) CPC 490 N.C.

—Station master failed to provide timely medical help to victim of railway accident - Directed to pay 3 lakhs as compensation - 2001(1) CPC 388 Kar.

—Suspension of rail services due to public disturbances - Complainant cannot claim any compensation on that account - 1992 CPC 160 N.C.

—T.T.E. charging Rs. 15 from complainant who boarded in reserved coach without ticket - No deficiency in service established against railways - 2006(2) CPC 300 N.C.

—T.T.E. misbehaved with complainant and forceably had driven him out of A.C. Compartment - Authority liable for act of its employee on rule of vicarious liability - 2004(2) CPC 252 Orissa

8

—Ticket purchased at Delhi - Also from Bombay to Delhi - Complainant triable at Delhi - 1991 CPC 601 (2) Delhi—Train reaching with delay of 10/12 hours due to derailment of goods train on the track - No deficiency in service

on the part of Railways - 2006(2) CPC 534 Raj.

--Train started without reserved coach before fixed date - Railway held liable to refund ticket price with Rs. 10,000 - 2000(1) CPC 60 A.P.

Railway ticket - Change in time of air flight due to technical snags resulting in loss - Complainant not entitled to any relief for loss of additional railway journey - 2000(2) CPC 513 A.P.

—Railway booking clerk charging excess amount for railway ticket without justification - Held liable for deficiency in service - 1994(2) CPC 251 Kar.

—Railway ticket wrongly punched - Recovery of compensation from an official not impleaded unjustified - Sneh Lata (Mrs.) v. Dilbagh Singh, 2003(1) CPC 277 Pb.

—Traveller allowed to travel by another train on same ticket as Ist train was late - Imposition of penalty amounts to deficiency in service - 1998(2) CPC 314 N.C.

Railway transportation - Goods sent through Railway damaged during transit - Insurance claim of Rs. 3,40,363 as assessed by surveyor allowed to complainant - 1998(1) CPC 636 Pb.

Railway travelling - Complainant boarded wrong train due to a wrong board - Railway authorities bound to compensate complainant for causing undue harassment - 2001(2) CPC 485 Chd.

Relief - No relief can be awarded on the mere allegations - Production of material evidence is essential to seek the relief - 1994(2) CPC 195 N.C.

Remand - Complainant not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing by authority delay - Remand of case justified - 2001(2) CPC 485 Chd.

—Treatment given to wife of railway employee in Railways Hospital which resulted in her death - As Medical treatment is part of Railway service it does not amount to free service - Case remanded - 2006(2) CPC 527 S.C.

Reservation of seats - Seat reserved in complainant’s name, wrongly allotted to another passenger - Railways held liable for deficiency in service - 1997(2) CPC 490 N.C.

—Passengers having ticket for IInd Class berth - Unauthorised people occupied the seats - It constitutes deficiency in service on the part of Railways - 2006(1) CPC 95 Raj.

—Journey disallowed despite reservation of seat after payment - Railway authorities liable for deficient service - Union of India v. Shri Sain Dass Sobti, 2003(1) CPC 447 Chd.

—Traveller got reservation of 2nd A. C. Sleeper - Seats were not provided - Railway Authority directed to compensate the complainant - 1999(2) CPC 306 M.P.

Rude behaviour of railway staff - Complainant’s valuables stolen during traveling but not due to negligence of railway staff but due to contributing negligence of complainant – Railway staff held liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- only for their inefficient dealing and not for loss of valuables – 2011(1) CPC 88 N.C.

Scooter Theft - Scooter stolen from Railway Scooter Stand - Railways held liable to pay scooter price to complainant - 1995(1) CPC 389 M.P.

Seat Allotment - Railway authorities held liable for gross negligence in allotment of seats which caused hardship to complainants - 1991 CPC 569 T.N.

Service - Ticket price does not include enquiry service of train departure - 1998(1) CPC 471 Orissa

Sleeper Coach - Complainant not provided Sleeper Coach despite confirmed reservation - Deficiency in service well established - 2001(1) CPC 542 Delhi

Superfast train - Non providing superfast train to persons holding 2nd class season ticket, not a deficiency in service - 1996(2) CPC 208 N.C.

Tatkal Service - Complainant failed to produce photo identity in original but only Xerox copy by him - Imposing penalty by Railway Staff held to be justified - 2007(1) CPC 314 Pondicherry

Theft in railway coach - Golden chain of complainant was removed by miscreants due to lack of electric light in the coach - Railways authorities directed to pay Rs. 32,000 as cost of gold chain and compensation - 2003(1) CPC 638 N.C.

Theft of luggage - Luggage stolen from reserved compartment - Railway authority cannot escape liability, on mere ground that complainant had changed coach - 2003(2) CPC 517 M.P.

9

Ticket charges - Entire amount charged by TTE from passenger - Railway directed to pay Rs. 1500 as compensation/Cost - 2003(2) CPC 71 N.C.

Ticketless travllers - Railway authorities not liable for deficiency in service if nuisance is created by the ticketless travellers - 1992 CPC 410 N.C.

Train - Moving of train without whistling causing injury to passenger - Sufferer to be compensated - General Manager, N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur v. Ram Parvesh Singh, 1998(2) CPC 41 Bihar

Train missing - Complainant on enquiry was told that train was late by one hour - Train missed due to arrival in time - Railway not at fault - 1998(1) CPC 471 Orissa

Train timings - Complainant was negligent in not checking the change in timing of trains - Not entitled to any relief - 1995(2) CPC 476 N.C.

Train Violence - Unruly mob looted complainant’s valuables on Amedkar’s day which was a part of recurring phenomenon every year - Railway is at fault for not taking precautionary measure - 2004(1) CPC 673 S.C.

Transfer of berths - T.T.E. is authorised to transfer seats of passengers travelling by same train under Railway Act - 2004(1) CPC 486 N.C.

Traveling without Ticket - Traveling on wrong ticket resulting in imposition of penalty - Railway not at fault - Sat Narain v. Station Superintendent, 1998(1) CPC 440 Hr.

Untoward incident - Complainant’s father fell in between track – Leg cut, died due to excessive bleeding – Such untoward incident was entertainable only by Railway Claim Tribunal and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction - 2010(2) CPC 593 N.C.

Violation of Rules - Literate persons cannot be expected to violate Indian Railway Rules - 1996(2) CPC 208 N.C.

Vicarious Liability - T.T.E. misbehaved with complainant and forceably had driven him out of A.C. Compartment - Authority liable for act of its employee on rule of vicarious liability - 2004(2) CPC 252 Orissa

*****

Consumer Protection Cases[C.P.C.]

A Monthly Law Journal

Indispensable for Banks, Courts, Lawyers, Doctors, Industrial Houses, Universities, Department of Telephone, Railways, Transport, Electricity, Housing Board, Urban Development Authorities, Industrial and

Consumer Associations etc.We publish a monthly Law Journal namely

“Consumer Protection Cases”.

Details of Volumes1. 1991 Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock2. 1992 Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock3. 1993 Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock4. 1994 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only5. 1994 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only6. 1995 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only7. 1995 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only8. 1996 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only9. 1996 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only

10

10. 1997 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only11. 1997 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only12. 1998 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only13. 1998 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only14. 1999 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only15. 1999 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only16. 2000 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only17. 2000 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only18. 2001 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only19. 2001 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 500/- only20. 2002 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only21. 2002 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only22. 2003 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only23. 2003 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only24. 2004 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Not in Stock25. 2004 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only26. 2005 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only27. 2005 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only28. 2006 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only29. 2006 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only30. 2007 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only31. 2007 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only32. 2008 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only33. 2008 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only34. 2008 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only35. 2009 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only36. 2009 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only37. 2009 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only38. 2010 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only39. 2010 (2) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only40. 2010 (3) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only41. 2011 (1) Consumer Protection Cases Rs. 580/- only42. Annual Subscription 2011 For three Vols Rs. 1360/- only43. Consumer Protection Cases Digest 1991 to 2008 Rs. 1320/- only

Address for Correspondence :

Manager,Consumer Protection Cases

1251, Sector 8-C,Chandigarh – 160 009

Phones : 0172-2544830 and 09417414675

E-mail cpc_chd@yahoo.comwww.consumercases.in

****