A consumer forum in Jharkhand has ordered South Eastern Railway to pay Rs 60,000 to a passenger following a five-hour train delay, ruling that the carrier’s failure to justify the schedule disruption constituted a deficiency in service.
The decision was delivered by a bench comprising President Sunil Kumar Singh along with members Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Sanju Shahi. The commission directed the General Manager of South Eastern Railway in Kolkata and the Senior Divisional Operations Manager of the Chakradharpur Division to pay the compensation within 45 days. The financial award comprises Rs 50,000 for mental agony and harassment, plus Rs 10,000 to cover legal fees.
Unjustified Delay Distresses Passenger
The complaint stems from a journey on October 13, 2024, involving the KBJ Ispat Express from Tatanagar to Sambalpur. According to the original timetable, the train was set to leave Tatanagar at 10:18 a.m. and reach Sambalpur at 3:50 p.m. However, the service arrived 317 minutes late.
Citing physical discomfort and mental distress caused by the prolonged journey, the passenger filed a grievance seeking Rs 2.5 lakh in damages.
Railways’ Legal Objections Rejected
South Eastern Railway contested the claim, contending that consumer commissions lack jurisdiction to hear railway-related disputes, which it argued fall under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The railway administration further argued that the complaint was procedurally flawed because IRCTC, through which the ticket was booked, and the Kharagpur Division were not named as parties to the suit.
The commission dismissed these objections, pointing to established jurisprudence from both the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission affirming that consumer forums are fully authorized to adjudicate cases regarding deficiencies in railway services. Highlighting apex court precedents, the panel noted that passenger time is valuable and that railways remain liable for delays unless they demonstrate that the disruption was unavoidable.
Lack Of Evidence Crucial To Decision
In its final determination, the commission observed that while the passenger submitted adequate oral and documentary evidence to support the claim, the railway authority failed to submit any evidence explaining the cause of the delay or proving that it resulted from circumstances beyond its control.
