The Late Arrival of Trains Without Justifiable Reasons Places Liability On The Railway Authorities: Ernakulam District Commission

Brief Facts of the Case

The case is filed under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter mentioned as CPA) regarding a significant failure of service by Southern Railways. The issue occurred during a train journey from Ernakulam to Chennai, with an unexpected delay of over thirteen hours, which impacted the complainant's work commitments. The complaint argues that the Railways should have promptly notified passengers about the delay and provided alternative arrangements. The complainant seeks compensation for the inconvenience, stress, and financial losses from a crucial professional meeting being cancelled.

Contentions of the opposition

The Counsel for the opposition stated that the respondents, responsible for operating trains, adhere to a predetermined schedule based on various factors. However, unexpected circumstances like track maintenance, signal failures, accidents, or natural events may necessitate train diversion, regulation, or cancellation, prioritizing passenger safety. Referring to a Supreme Court order affirming their authority to modify train timings; the respondents asserted that decisions are made as needed and feasible which was valid in this case as the circumstances leading to the rescheduling were beyond their control. They claimed to have sent SMS notifications to all reserved passengers, including the complainant, informing them of the delay and suggesting alternative transportation options two hours before the scheduled departure. It was further argued that a full refund was available to passengers, and there was no deficiency, negligence, or lethargy on the part of the respondents. The counsel concluded that the allegations in the complaint were vague and frivolous.

Observations by the Commission

The bench stated that the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1) of the CPA, and the unexpected delay of over 13 hours, coupled with inadequate prior communication, is a deficiency in service as defined in the aforementioned act. The commission further cited the case of Northern Western Railway V/S Sanjay sukhla to emphasize the accountability of railways in such situations. It was elucidated that though the opposing side gave reasons for the delay, these were neither unexpected nor sudden as the yard remodeling was planned work; hence, railway authorities should have been ready to notify passengers of the delay ahead of time, enabling them to make alternate plans. The bench ruled that the unexpected delay caused substantial inconvenience and distress to the complainant. Although the purpose of the journey was not specified at the time of ticket booking, the railways, as a major PSU ought to prioritize timely and efficient service.

The bench found the opposite party liable for deficiency of service and Unfair trade practices and awarded compensation and 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Counsel for the Complainant: Advocate Suresh B.S

Counsel for the Opposite party: Represented by the Secretary of The Ministry of Indian Railways

Case Title: Karthik Mohan v. Ministry of Indian Railways

Case Number: C.C. No. 248/2018