1. S /Shri G.C Sharma, B.D. Sharma and N.K. Sharma alongwith the members of their families purchased circular railway tour tickets for 13 berths in AC 2nd Class Sleeper/lst Class from Jullundur Railway Station on the 20th of August, 1991. There was confirmed reservation only of two berths for the Respondent-Complainants, the remaining persons were on the wait list. Messages were also sent for their onward reservation en-route to Bombay V.T., Vascodegama, Bangalore, Madurai, Miraj, Madras Central etc. On reaching the Railway Station on 8th September, 1991 the Respondents-Complainants were told that only 2 berths had been reserved in 2nd Class Sleeper. Their luggages were not loaded in the same train instead it was despatched by another train and the same reached Bombay late putting the Respondents and their families members to great inconvenience. Further train journeys were also not confirmed despite the message sent. In the result they had to travel in congested 2nd Class Three-tier Sleepers and were also subjected to harassment in getting seats in those trains. In consequence their whole tour was spoiled and they suffered mental torture and harassment in addition to waste of money.
2. THEY filed a complaint before the District Forum Hamirpur (Himachal Pradesh) which held that there was deficiency of service on the part of Railways and awarded Rs. 4,000/- as compensation to the Complainants before them and who are Respondents here. In appeal the State Commission held that negligence on the part of Revision Petitioner-Appellant was proved and that the compensation awarded was fair and reasonable.
The Revision Petitioner had raised before the lower forums the want of jurisdiction of the f forums to take cognizance of this complaint. The reservation had been made or was to be made at Jullundur Railway Station from where the journey was to commence i.e. in Punjab whereas the complaint was filed before the Hamirpur District in Himachal Pradesh. The Respondent-complainants had taken the plea that the Station Superintendent, Jullundur had confirmed their berths when he was contacted by them on phone n 4th and 6th September, 1991 from Hamirpur. These facts have been affirmed in the affidavits of Respondent-Complainants. The Revision Petitioner had denied that there was any telephonic confirmation of the seats but this has been e only at the level of Assistant Station Superintendent and not by the Station Superintendent Jullundur.
3. THE Revision Petitioner has submitted that there was no deficiency of service as there was confirmed reservation only for two persons for journey from Jullundur to Bombay Central and the remaining persons were wait listed. So long as there was no confirmation of reservation in respect of any person, the failure or inability of the Railway Administration to provide accommodation in the train cannot constitute a deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration.
4. THE Revision Petitioner also submitted that necessary messages for reservation for onward journeys from different stations were duly communicated to the stations concerned. Some of those stations had intimated the names of the persons in whose favour seats have been confirmed or who were on the wait list.
As regards the question of delay in the carriage of luggage, the Revision Petitioner has pointed out that the Respondents-Complainants declared the excess baggage/luggage as house-hold effects in the forwarding note tendered for its booking.
5. THIS Commission is of the view that the Hamirpur District Forum could not acquire jurisdiction to entertain this complaint merely because the Respondents-Complainants had sought for and allegedly obtained confirmation telephonically from Hamirpur from the Railway Station Jullundur.
6. AFTER going through the record and hearing the parties we are of the view that the Respondent is under obligation to provide accommodation in railway trains against confirmed booking only and not where a passenger is wait listed. Considering the conditions prevailing in the country it would be hazardous to make Railways liable on the ground that the passenger claims to have obtained confirmation of reservation on telephone when such telephonic conversation is denied by a responsible official of the Railway Organisation. We, therefore, hold that there has been wrongful exercise of jurisdiction in this case. There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the Revision Petitioner. In the result the Revision Petition is allowed and the Orders of the State Commission and the District Forums are set aside. There is no order as to costs.
