1

Consumer Protection Digest

on
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. 11,2 as compensation - 1!!!"2# C$C 2%2 &.'.
Car theft - Complainant(s car stolen from Railway parking - )oth Railway and Contractor held liable for
compensation - 1!!*"2# C$C +,+ -elhi
Chain snatching in train - .old chain with mangulsatra worn by petitioner was snatched from ad/acent e0it
door of the coach 1 -eficient service proved 1 Compensation of Rs. 2,, awarded in place of Rs. ,, 1 2!"1# C$C
+++ '.C.
Change of railway route - Route of train was changed due to repairs of railway line 1 2nformation
was given by publication in newspapers 1 &icket holder not entitled to any compensation e0cept refund of
railway fare 1 21"1# C$C +% $b.
Compensation - Amount of compensation Rs. ,,, for deficient service for non providing amenities held on
higher side - Reduced to Rs. 1, only - 2+"2# C$C *3 '.C.
--Amount of compensation should not be granted on a higher side - 1!!%"2# C$C ,*3 -elhi
4Cancellation of train without notice to ticket holder, in name of so called security reasons - Complainant held
entitled compensation of Rs. !, - Railway Administration v. K.S. Malka, 2*"2# C$C 5,, Chd.
4Compensation based upon indirect cause and speulition alone not permissible - 21"2# C$C +32 6.$.
4Compensation if found on higher side can be reduced by Appellate Authority to lesser amount - General
Manager, South Central Railway v. K. Abdul Waris, 2"1# C$C 221 A.$.
--Complainant(s luggage stolen from coach where unauthori7ed person had entered in reserved compartment 1
Railway Authorities directed to pay Rs. %, with cost and interest 1 21"1# C$C *2! '.C.
4Compensation should have a rationale to the nature and e0tent of in/ury or suffering caused to the complainant -
General Manager, South Eastern Railway v. Anand Prasad Sinha, 1!!1 C$C 22 '.C.
--Complainant, an old lady was not arranged any seat despite reservation causing great mental agony - Railway
authority directed to pay Rs. ,, as compensation - 21"2# C$C *53 Chd.
4Complainant suffered a loss of Rs. %, as his luggage was stolen during railway /ourney - Compensation of Rs.
2, enhanced to Rs. *, in revision - 25"2# C$C 23 '.C.
--Complainant(s valuables stolen during traveling but not due to negligence of railway staff but due to
contributing negligence of complainant 1 Railway staff held liable to pay Rs. ,,8- only for their inefficient
dealing and not for loss of valuables 1 211"1# C$C 33 '.C.
4Complainant suffered from fever and cold due to unbearable cold in railway coach - Authorities directed to pay
Rs. 5, with 1,9 interest to complainant - 1!!3"2# C$C +%% $b.
4Complainant suffered huge loss due to non reservation of seats by negligence on part of Railway authorities -
Authorities directed to pay total sum of Rs. 52, to * passengers - 2"1# C$C 25+ :.$.
4Complainants luggage containing valuable article stole during Railway /ourney - Compensation of Rs. 52,
including price of article is /ust and proper - 2+"2# C$C 5+ ;er.
4Complainant(s insured car stolen from Railway parking - Compensation comes e<ual to car price minus insurance
amount - 1!!*"2# C$C +,+ -elhi
4-istrict =orum determined Rs. 1, as compensation for loss of suitcase - -emand of Rs. ,, without
elaborate en<uiry cannot be enhanced - harti Arora !Ku." v. G.M. Central Railway, 2+"2# C$C ,1% 6.$.
4'either conductor nor coach attendant was present in compartment at the time of dacoity of ornaments - Railway
authorities directed to pay Rs. ,, - 23"2# C$C !% '.C.
4$assenger with ticket insured due to collapse of footpath over Railway bridge - Railways directed to pay Rs.
2,,, as compensation - 23"1# C$C 2%% '.C.
4Railway authority failed to e0plain as to why 1st class coach was not attached to the train for which complainant
was having a ticket - Respondent directed to pay Rs.,, in lump sum as compensation - 2%"1# C$C +13 6.$.
2
4Railway passengers can be awarded only reasonable compensation for loss of articles and not the total value of
lost articles - R. Ramaswamy v. #nion o$ %ndia, 1!!%"1# C$C ,,% .oa
4Railway - &he Railways being a public utility service, they should be prompt to remove the difficulties of the
passengers - 1!!2 C$C %2 :.$.
4Removal of baggage from berth to accommodate a 6inister - -ifference in fare alongwith compensation of Rs.
11, allowed - Minister o$ Railways v. G. &. Sanghi, 2,"2# C$C *3 -elhi
4&&> slapped penalty of Rs. +! on complainant in violation of 6?& first class pass and supplementary ticket -
Railways directed to pay consolidated damage of Rs. 1,8 with cost - 2%"2# C$C ,2 '.C.
4@ictim of railway accident died due to negligence of station master was a student of ).>. Computer Course -
Compensation of Rs. + lakhs /ustified - M. Chidambaram v. Southern Railways, 21"1# C$C +33 ;ar.
4Complainant having telephone of Railway -eptt. at his house in official capacity - Complaint filed by him
personal capacity not maintainable - 25"1# C$C 13 :r.
4Complaint filed without impleading other *3 passengers nor any authority on their behalf was produced -
Complaint not maintainable on behalf of other passengers - 2"2# C$C 2+ 6eghalaya
4A person claiming refund of security deposited for claiming delivery of goods from Railways is not a consumer -
#nion o$ %ndia, 'orthern Railway v. M(s Satish Kumar Ra)inder Kumar, 2"1# C$C *!* $b.
Consumer - &rain passengers travelling by train on payment of the stipulated fare, come under the definition of a
consumer - 1!!1 C$C 22 '.C.
Consumer dispute - -emand of refund of amount deposited as a security with Railways is not a consumer
dispute - 6atter covered under the Railways Act - 2"1# C$C *!* $b.
Dacoity in train - 'either conductor nor coach attendant was present in compartment at the time of dacoity of
ornaments - Railway authorities directed to pay Rs. ,, - 23"2# C$C !% '.C.
Defective berths 1 Reservation cancelled 1 )erths had developed defects 1 'o alternative arrangement made by
Railways 1 'ecessary arrangements should have been made in time 1 -eficient service proved 1 Arder of awarding
compensation by -istrict =orum upheld - 21"+# C$C 233 -elhi
Deficiency in Service - Absence of police constable or &.&.>. in compartment where theft had taken place -
Railway is guilty of deficiency in service - 2,"1# C$C 22% '.C.
Directions - Consumer =orum can issue directions under ?ection 1* "1# "e# of C.$. Act to Railway Authorities to
remove any defect in rendering service to travellers * 1!!3"2# C$C 52 A.$.
4-irections can be issued to Railway to trace out the lost wagon with goods of complainant - 1!!*"1# C$C !!
Arissa
Evidence - Adverse inference should be drawn against the person not producing the document in his possession *
1!!*"1# C$C 513 -elhi
Excess fare - Back of amenities alleged by traveler 1 >0cess charging of fare also alleged 1 =orum allowed
refund of e0cess amount with compensation of Rs. 1 lacs 1 Refund of e0cess amount only is /ustified - 21"+# C$C *%
'.C.
old Chain snatching - Complainant(s gold chain snatched by miscreants during railway /ourney - Railways
directed to pay Rs. 1,,3* as cost of /ewellery with compensation of Rs. 1, - 2,"1# C$C 5+ '.C.
!iring of service - A person claiming refund of security deposited for claiming delivery of goods from
Railways is not a consumer - 2"1# C$C *!* $b.
"mpleadment - Ab/ection regarding mis/oinder of parties not taken earlier - Appeal cannot be dismissed on this
technical ob/ection * General Manager, Eastern Railways v. Smt. Malti Gu+ta, 2"1# C$C 5%* 6.$.
#oinder of causes of action - Coinder of causes of action between same parties to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings is permissible - 21"2# C$C 21+ .u/.
$iability - Complainant(s son suffered in/uries while getting down from train - Railway authorities not liable for
negligence * #nion o$ %ndia v. Amar 'ath Gu+ta, 1!!!"2# C$C *+, $b.
--Reservation cancelled 1 )erths had developed defects 1 'o alternative arrangement made by Railways 1 'ecessary
arrangements should have been made in time 1 -eficient service proved 1 Arder of awarding compensation by -istrict
=orum upheld - 21"+# C$C 233 -elhi
$oss of luggage - Complainant suffered a loss of Rs. %, as his luggage was stolen during railway /ourney -
Compensation of Rs. 2, enhanced to Rs. *, in revision - 25"2# C$C 23 '.C.
+
$uggage theft - Buggage were lost which allegedly were entrusted to a coolie who is not an employee
of Railways 1 Complainant not entitled to any relief 1 21"1# C$C 5+ D.$.
%ale&'emale tic(et - &icket Collector charged Rs. ,!* as penalty for wrong use of ticket for seat for EmaleF
instead of EfemaleF - A.$. not producing original record - Authorities guilty of deficiency in service - 2*"1# C$C 2!%
$b.
%isleading advertisements - A.$. displayed misleading li<uor advertisement on railway coach against
Railway guidelines inducing young generation from cold drinks to beer - A.$ directed to issue corrective advertisement -
2%"2# C$C 1,, '.C.
)atural *ustice - Railway ticket wrongly punched - Recovery of compensation from an official not impleaded
un/ustified * Sneh &ata !Mrs." v. ,ilbagh Singh, 2+"1# C$C 2%% $b.
)egligence by Railways - =irst class coach not made available to complainant making payment for the same
- .rant of compensation to complainant /ustified * 2"2# C$C 5!1 -elhi
)on prosecution - Complaint against Railway keeping dirty platform - Complaint not prosecuted before
-istrict =orum - Relief declined in appeal * 1!!3"2# C$C 2%2 Chd.
Par(ing - Complainant parked bicycle at Railway cycle stand - 'o material to hold that respondents had
undertaken any responsibility of its safe custody - Complaint dismissed - 25"1# C$C !+ Chattisgarh
Passenger+s loss - Dnruly 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 - 2*"1# C$C 5%+ ?.C.
Passenger+s luggage - Boss of luggage of a passenger from a reserved coach - Railway held liable for
deficiency in service - Railway Act not applicable - 2,"2# C$C 132 '.C.
Penalty - $ersons holding 2nd class season ticket traveling by ?uper fast train - 2mposition of penalty /ustified *
1!!5"2# C$C 23 '.C.
Pleading - 'o relief can be awarded on the mere allegations made in the complaint - $roduction of material
evidence is essential * 1!!*"2# C$C 1!, '.C.
Railway accident - -eceased fell from running train due to his carelessness - Railways cannot be held liable *
Miro ,e-i !Smt." v. #nion o$ %ndia, 1!!*"2# C$C *15 '.C.
42nsured died in Rail accident - Dnfounded allegation of suicide by insurer for repudiation of claim un/ustified *
&i$e %nsuran.e Cor+oration o$ %ndia v. Smt. Shama Rani, 2"1# C$C 151 $b.
Railway authorities - Railway authorities failed to reserve seats despite payment for return /ourney ticket
made one month in advance - Consumer /urisdiction not ousted by Railway Claim &ribunal Act * 2"1# C$C 25+ :.$.
Railway berth - )erth reserved for complainant was wrongly allotted to third party - Complainant was awarded
Rs. 2, as compensation * Mansukhbhai and Anr. v. /he General Manager, Western Railway, 1!!,"2# C$C *53 6aha.
4Complainant(s son having found his booked berth already occupied - :e got down from train in confusion and
sustained in/ury - 'o negligence on part of Railways proved - Relief declined * 1!!!"2# C$C *+, $b.
4Complainant(s baggage removed unauthorisedly from berth to accommodate the 6inister - Railways committed
gross negligence - Minister o$ Railways -. G. &. Sanghi, 2,"2# C$C *3 -elhi
4&raveller got reservation of 2nd A. C. ?leeper - ?eats were not provided - Railway Authority directed to
compensate the complainant * 1!!!"2# C$C +5 6.$.
Railway claim - Claim about under charges for e0cess weight covered under ?ection 1+ "1# of the Railway
Claims Act - ?ection 1, of the Act ousts the /urisdiction of other &ribunals * 1!!*"2# C$C *% $b.
46atter covered under the Railway &ribunal Act - Curisdiction under Consumer $rotection Act barred * #nion o$
%ndia through General Manager, Madras v. M. Adaikalam, 1!!+ C$C 5%5 '.C.
Railway coach - Complainant suffered from fever and cold due to unbearable cold in railway coach -
Authorities directed to pay Rs. 5, with 1,9 interest to complainant * 1!!3"2# C$C +%% $b.
Railway fare - Complainant held entitled to refund of whole fare where whole /ourney could not be completed
due to unforeseen rush in the train * ,r. A.0. 1uilgol v. #nion o$ %ndia, 1!!*"1# C$C !, ;ar.
4-istance between two railway stations was % ;m. with 1 stops on the route - =air cannot be charged for e0press
train but for passenger train - 2,"2# C$C +1, '.C.
Railway *ourney - A traveller having monthly season ticket is not entitled to travel in a super fast train without
supper charge ticket * Sat 'arain v. Station Su+erintendent, 1!!3"1# C$C ** :r.
*
4Complainant having reserved 2nd class berth had to travel by general compartment with great harassment -
Railway authorities directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1, instead of Rs. 2, * 2"1# C$C 221 A.$.
4Complainant(s suitcase stolen by miscreants from reserved compartment - Railways held liable to compensate to
complainant * 2*"1# C$C *35 '.C.
4Complainant(s valuable luggage looted by violent mob - ?tate Commission rightly awarded compensation of Rs.
1,*1,%,5 - Arder of 'ational Commission set aside - 2*"1# C$C 5%+ ?.C.
4Complainant suffered a loss of Rs. %, as his luggage was stolen during railway /ourney - Compensation of Rs.
2, enhanced to Rs. *, in revision - 25"2# C$C 23 '.C.
4Complainant(s valuable luggage looted by violent mob - ?tate Commission rightly awarded compensation of Rs.
1,*1,%,5 - Arder of 'ational Commission set aside - 2*"1# C$C 5%+ ?C
4Courney disallowed despite reservation of seat after payment - Railway authorities liable for deficient service *
#nion o$ %ndia v. Shri Sain ,ass Sobti, 2+"1# C$C **% Chd.
4'on availability of water and electricity during railway /ourney - Compensation of Rs. %, awarded to
complainant * ,i-isional Railway Manager, Western Railway v. Mr. '. Ramakrishnan, 21"2# C$C 21+ .u/.
4&icket Collector charged Rs. ,!* as penalty for wrong use of ticket for seat for EmaleF instead of EfemaleF - A.$.
not producing original record - Authorities guilty of deficiency in service * 2*"1# C$C 2!% $b.
4&raveller allowed to travel by another train on same ticket as 2st train was late - 2mposition of penalty amounts to
deficiency in service * 1!!3"2# C$C +1* '.C.
Railway liability - Railway -epartment cannot be held liable for loss of baggage which is not booked nor
protected by passenger - 2,"2# C$C 1%2 '.C.
4Boss of luggage of a passenger from a reserved coach - Railway held liable for deficiency in service - Railway Act
not applicable - 2,"2# C$C 132 '.C.
Railways negligence - Dnauthorised person entered the reserved compartment of complainant and took away
her luggage - Railway Authorities directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,, with 129 interest * 2"1# C$C 5%*
6.$.
Railway over bridge - 2t is the duty of Railway staff to maintain properly the footpath over bridge "=A)# and
platform in the interest of ticket holder passengers - 23"1# C$C 2%% '.C.
Railway par(ing - Complainant(s car stolen from Railway parking - )oth Railway and Contractor held liable
for compensation * ,a-inder Mohan 0erma v. General Manager, 'orthern Railway, 1!!*"2# C$C +,+ -elhi
Railway pass - &&> slapped penalty of Rs. +! on complainant in violation of 6?& first class pass and
supplementary ticket - Railways directed to pay consolidated damage of Rs. 1, with cost - 2%"2# C$C ,2 '.C.
Railway platform - Complaint against Railway keeping dirty platform - Complaint not prosecuted before
-istrict =orum - Relief declined in appeal * 1!!3"2# C$C 2%2 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. 52, to * passengers * 2"1# C$C 25+ :.$.
Railway route - Rerouting of a train falls within the province of Railway 6anagement - 'ot a service under
C.$. Act * 1!!5"1# C$C 1! '.C.
Railway season tic(et - A traveller having monthly reason ticket is not entitled to travel in a super fast train
without supper charge ticket * Sat 'arain v. Station Su+erintendent, 1!!3"1# C$C ** :r.
Railway service - A brief case with clothes etc. deposited in Railway Cloakroom was delivered to a wrong
person - Authorities directed to pay Rs. 11,2 as compensation * 1!!!"2# C$C 2%2 &.'.
-- As per rule of Coaching &arif railways not accountable for late arrival and departure of train - Consumer fora has
no /urisdiction to decide the matter * 22"1# C$C *!! .u/.
4Absence of police constable or &.&.>. in compartment where theft had taken place - Railway is guilty of
deficiency in service - 2,"1# C$C 22% '.C.
4Accommodation provided in coach against a chair car ticket - 'o basic difference between the two - 'o
deficiency in service proved - 2,"1# C$C 2, '.C.
4Allegation of non attachment of coach by complainant as alleged by complainant(s Advocate was found to be
false in railway in<uiry - Complaint by =ora below rightly dismissed - Relief declined - 23"2# C$C 2*2 '.C.
4Amount of compensation Rs. ,,, for deficient service for non providing amenities held on higher side -
Reduced to Rs. 1, only * 2+"2# C$C *3 '.C.
,
4Cancellation of train without notice to ticket holder, in name of so called security reasons - Complainant held
entitled compensation of Rs. !, - Railway Administration -. K.S. Malka, 2*"2# C$C 5,, Chd.
4Classification of trains without providing special amenities - Authorities directed to follow proper guidelines *
1!!+ C$C 3+ '.C.
4Complainant along with his daughter kept standing in compartment throughout the night - Railway liable for
negligence * Rama Kant Aggarwal v. General Manager, 'orther Railway, 1!!*"1# C$C 513 -elhi
4Complainant being a senior citi7en claimed compensation for allotment of upper berth - ?ubmission is without
merit - Relief declined - 2%"1# C$C *,! '.C.
4Complainant could not get reserved seat due to rush of passengers - Railway held not liable * ,r. A.0. 1uilgol v.
#nion o$ %ndia, 1!!*"1# C$C !, ;ar.
--Complainant(s valuables stolen during traveling but not due to negligence of railway staff but due to
contributing negligence of complainant 1 Railway staff held liable to pay Rs. ,,8- only for their inefficient
dealing and not for loss of valuables 1 211"1# C$C 33 '.C.
4Complainant failed to produce photo identity in original but only Gero0 copy by him - 2mposing penalty by
Railway ?taff held to be /ustified - 2%"1# C$C +1* $ondicherry
4Complainant got a berth reserved - )erth without any cushion or fan and sufficient light - Complainant held
entitled to compensation * #nion o$ %ndia v. Ramasarey, 1!!*"2# C$C 23 D.$.
4Complainant 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 - 2*"2# C$C ,%+ '.C.
4Complainant had to travel, keeping on standing due to negligence of the .uard - :eld entitled to compensation of
Rs. 2, * 1!!*"2# C$C ,%2 '.C.
4Complainant missed train and suffered mental agony due to negligence of Railway Clerk - Awarded
compensation of Rs. %,, * S. Push+a-anam v. /he G. M. Southern Railways, 1!!1 C$C ,13 &.'.
4Complainant not provided ?leeper Coach despite confirmed reservation - -eficiency in service well established *
Senior Su+erintendent, 'orthern Railway v. Mrs. Prem Sood, 21"1# C$C ,*2 -elhi
4Complainant on en<uiry was told that train was late by one hour - &rain missed due to arrival in time - Railway
not at fault * General Manager, South Eastern Railway v. M. Gourinath, 1!!3"1# C$C *%1 Arissa
4Complainant, an old lady was not arranged any seat despite reservation causing great mental agony - Railway
authority directed to pay Rs. ,, as compensation * 21"2# C$C *53 Chd.
--Complainant(s daughter while passing through interconnected passage from one compartment to another died -
Railways to pay Rs. 2,2,, as compensation * 1!!%"1# C$C *2 '.C.
--Complainant(s father fell in between track 1 Beg cut, died due to e0cessive bleeding 1 ?uch untoward incident was
entertainable only by Railway Claim &ribunal and Consumer =ora has no /urisdiction - 21"2# C$C ,!+ '.C.
4Complainant(s gold chain snatched by miscreants during railway /ourney - Railways directed to pay Rs. 1,,3* as
cost of /ewellery with compensation of Rs. 1, - 2,"1# C$C 5+ '.C.
4Complainant(s hand in/ured due to fall of defective shutter of window of train compartment - Compensation of
Rs.*, with !9 interest to complainant /ustified * 21"2# C$C +32 6.$.
--Complainant(s luggage stolen from coach where unauthori7ed person had entered in reserved
compartment 1 Railway Authorities directed to pay Rs. %, with cost and interest 1 21"1# C$C *2! '.C.
4Complainant(s suitcase found missing from cloak room - Railway authorities directed to pay Rs. 1, to
complainant * 'orthern Railway v. &t. Col. '.C. Mitra, 1!!%"2# C$C ,*3 -elhi
4Complainant(s tier-berth wrongfully allotted to some one else due to negligence of Railway Clerk - Rs. 2,
allowed as compensation to Complainant - 1!!1 C$C 51 "2# -elhi
4Complainants luggage taken away by unauthorised passengers - Complainant is a consumer under the Act to file a
complaint - ?ection 1 of Railway Act is no bar * 2+"2# C$C 5+ ;er.
4Complaint after purchase of ticket could not travel as train was late by si0 hours. Refund of ticked amount
disallowed - Railways rightly the directed to refund amount with compensation of Rs. % - 2%"2# C$C 2+5 '.C.
4Complaint filed without impleading other *3 passengers nor any authority on their behalf was produced -
Complaint not maintainable on behalf of other passengers * 2"2# C$C 2+ 6eghalaya
4Complaint regarding supply of drinking water in satchel - Railways authorities directed to supply water in suitable
containers * 1!!1 C$C *!+ &.'.
4Concession in ticket denied to handicapped person due to unsigned 6edical Certificate - Railways not guilty of
deficient service - #nion o$ %ndia -. Mukesh Khanna, 25"1# C$C 13 $b.
4-arkness of Railway ?tation resulted in falling down of complainant causing leg fracture - Railways directed to
pay Rs. Ane lakh compensation * 1!!3"2# C$C *1 )ihar
5
4-eath due to accident caused by service train running without light - Complainant allowed Rs. *,%,,2 as
compensation - $lea of contradictory negligence re/ected - Rakesh Saini -. #nion o$ %ndia, 2*"2# C$C ** -elhi :.C.
4-eath of passenger due to heart failure during /ourney - Railways not liable for deficiency in service * Prem 2ain
v. #nion o$ %ndia, 1!!%"2# C$C ,% $b.
4-efect in boggy due to leaking roofs - Authorities directed to remove inconvenience * 1!!1 C$C ,+ Arissa
4-eficiencies in maintenance of the compartment like water, light, fan and toilets etc. and non-providing of pantry
car in the long /ourney by e0press train - -istrict =orum rightly awarded the compensation and cost directing to attach
pantry car in super fast trains - 2%"2# C$C 21! A.$.
4-elay of 1 :ours in departure - Complainant-passengers awarded Rs. , each for suffering loss * #nion o$
%ndia v. Kedarnath 2ena, 1!!3"1# C$C ,3, Arissa
---elay of * hours in arrival of train due to derailment of a goods train - Railway Authorities not liable for deficient
service * 21"2# C$C *31 Chd.
4-emand of refund of amount deposited as a security with Railways is not a consumer dispute - 6atter covered
under the provisions of 2ndian Railways Act * 2"1# C$C *!* $b.
4-irections can be issued to railway to trace out the lost wagon with goods of complainant * 1!!*"1# C$C !!
Arissa
4-ispute between railways and its employees regarding replacement of defective articles is not a consumer dispute
* Sri Surendra 'ath &al v. /.,. A.harya, Chie$ Personnel(wel$are %ns+e.tor, 'ER, 1!!5"1# C$C ,12 )ihar
4-og in compartment - A separate arrangement should be made - ?hould not be carried in passanger(s
compartments * 1!!2 C$C *1 '.C.
4>ntire amount charged by &&> from passenger - Railway directed to pay Rs. 1, as compensation8Cost *
2+"2# C$C %1 '.C.
--=aulty construction of drinking water hydrant at Railway platform caused death of deceased 1 Consumer
/urisdiction is not ousted by Railways Act or Railway Claims &ribunal Act 1 Relief granted 1 21"1# C$C 5!
'.C.
4=irst class coach not made available to complainant making payment for the same - .rant of compensation to
complainant /ustified * 2"2# C$C 5!1 -elhi
4=irst Class Compartment was booked but could not be attached due to an accident - Railways to pay moderate
compensation * 1!!%"2# C$C 5*3 $b.
--.old chain with mangulsatra worn by petitioner was snatched from ad/acent e0it door of the coach 1 -eficient
service proved 1 Compensation of Rs. 2,, awarded in place of Rs. ,, 1 2!"1# C$C +++ '.C.
4.olden chain of complainant was removed by miscreants due to lack of electric light in the coach - Railways
authorities directed to pay Rs. +2, as cost of gold chain and compensation * 2+"1# C$C 5+3 '.C.
4.oods transported through Railway not reached destination - Claim is tribal by Railway Claim &ribunal -
Complaint dismissed - 2*"2# C$C 1!% D.$.
--Back of amenities alleged by traveler 1 >0cess charging of fare also alleged 1 =orum allowed refund of e0cess
amount with compensation of Rs. 1 lacs 1 Refund of e0cess amount only is /ustified - 21"+# C$C *% '.C.
4Boss as a result of non-reservation of berth due to negligence of Railway ?taff - Compensation of Rs. *,
allowed to complainant * 1!!+ C$C ,5* :.$.
4Boss to consignment caused for non delivery due negligence of railway staff - Remedy lies under Railways Claim
&ribunal Act and not under the C.$. Act * 2+"1# C$C 22% Char.
--Buggage stolen from coach due to negligence of coach attendant - Railway authorities liable for deficiency in
service - 25"1# C$C *5 '.C.
--Buggage were lost which allegedly were entrusted to a coolie who is not an employee of Railways 1
Complainant not entitled to any relief 1 21"1# C$C 5+ D.$.
46atter covered under Railway Claims &ribunal Act - Consumer /urisdiction ousted by virtue of ?ection 1, of the
Railways Act * 1!!+ C$C 31 $b.
4'either conductor nor coach attendant was present in compartment at the time of dacoity of ornaments - Railway
authorities directed to pay Rs. ,, - 23"2# C$C !% '.C.
4'on supply of drinking water in train constitutes a deficiency in service * 1!!+ C$C %5+ '.C.
4A$ filed an affidavit challenging the finding of ?tate Commission about entrusting of goods to conductor of coach
- 2mpugned order set aside - 2%"1# C$C +5 '.C.
4Arnaments snatched by a person during railway /ourney - Railway authorities directed to pay compensation of Rs.
2,, as per value of ornaments - 23"+# C$C 2+1 '.C.
%
4Avercharging from passenger by Railway - Complaint covered under Railway Claims &ribunal Act - Consumer
/urisdiction barred * #nion o$ %ndia v. Sudarshan Ka+oor, 1!!3"2# C$C ,22 $b.
4$assenger cannot be deprived of a confirmed reservation of berth e0cept for special reasons by Railway
authorities * 2"2# C$C 5*3 '.C.
4$assenger with ticket insured due to collapse of footpath over Railway bridge - Railways directed to pay Rs.
2,,, as compensation - 23"1# C$C 2%% '.C.
4$assengers having ticket for 22nd Class berth - Dnauthorised people occupied the seats - 2t constitutes deficiency
in service on the part of Railways - 25"1# C$C !, Ra/.
4$assengers put to suffering by not providing of pantry car between two stations - Railway Authorities held liable
to compensate the complainant * 1!!+ C$C %5+ '.C.
4$enalties can be charged from a passenger only when is trying to board or to alight from a train without ticket *
1!!3"1# C$C **! $b.
4$ersons holding 2nd class season ticket traveling by ?uperfast train - 2mposition of penalty /ustified * 1!!5"2#
C$C 23 '.C.
4$oor maintenance of Coaches, shutter of windows broken with certain others defects - Railway held liable for
deficiency in service - 2,"1# C$C 51, -elhi
4$rovisions of Railway Claim &ribunal Act is no bar to provisions of C.$. Act * 1!!3"1# C$C **3 :r.
--Railway Administration not checking entry of unauthorised persons occupying reserved compartment - :eld,
liable for deficiency in service * 1!!5"2# C$C 255 '.C.
4Railway Authorities - Arbitrariness in allotment of seats - Railway authorities are responsible for the conduct of
their employees - Complainant awarded Rs. 1, as compensation with cost of Rs. + * 1!!1 C$C *, &.'.
4Railway authorities failed to reserve berth on priority basis without any e0planation - :eld liable for deficiency in
service * 2"2# C$C 5*5 '.C.
4Railway authorities should fi0 metallic plate number on compartment instead of writing numbers with chalk to
avoid suffering of passengers * 1!!3"2# C$C 52 A.$.
4Railway authority failed to e0plain as to why 1st class coach was not attached to the train for which complainant
was having a ticket - Respondent directed to pay Rs.,, in lump sum as compensation - 2%"1# C$C +13 6.$.
4Railway passengers can be awarded only reasonable compensation for loss of articles and not the total value of
lost articles * R. Ramaswamy v. #nion o$ %ndia, 1!!%"1# C$C ,,% .oa
4Railways authorities should take action against the erring employee who caused unnecessary harassment to the
passenger complainant * 1!!+ C$C ,2+ D.$.
--Reservation cancelled 1 )erths had developed defects 1 'o alternative arrangement made by Railways 1 'ecessary
arrangements should have been made in time 1 -eficient service proved 1 Arder of awarding compensation by -istrict
=orum upheld - 21"+# C$C 233 -elhi
4Reserved coach not attached - &wo confirmed )erths not provided in another coach - -eficiency in service proved
and granted Rs. %, as compensation - 23"1# C$C ,*+ '.C.
--Route of train was changed due to repairs of railway line 1 2nformation was given by publication in
newspapers 1 &icket holder not entitled to any compensation e0cept refund of railway fare 1 21"1# C$C +%
$b.
4Rush in compartment - Complainant8commuters suffered due to heavy rush in compartments - Railway authorities
directed to make necessary arrangements * 1!!1 C$C ,+ Arissa
4?cooter stolen from Railway ?cooter ?tand - Railways held liable to pay scooter price to complainant * 1!!,"1#
C$C +3! 6.$.
4?eat allotment - Railway authorities held liable for gross negligence in allotment of seats which caused hardship
to complainants * 1!!1 C$C ,5! &.'.
4?eat reserved in complainant(s name, wrongly allotted to another passenger - Railways held liable for deficiency
in service * 1!!%"2# C$C *! '.C.
4?tation master failed to provide timely medical help to victim of railway accident - -irected to pay + lakhs as
compensation * 21"1# C$C +33 ;ar.
4?uspension of rail services due to public disturbances - Complainant cannot claim any compensation on that
account * 1!!2 C$C 15 '.C.
4&.&.>. charging Rs. 1, from complainant who boarded in reserved coach without ticket - 'o deficiency in service
established against railways - 25"2# C$C + '.C.
4&.&.>. misbehaved with complainant and forceably had driven him out of A.C. Compartment - Authority liable
for act of its employee on rule of vicarious liability - 2*"2# C$C 2,2 Arissa
3
4&icket purchased at -elhi - Also from )ombay to -elhi - Complainant triable at -elhi * 1!!1 C$C 51 "2# -elhi
4&rain reaching with delay of 1812 hours due to derailment of goods train on the track - 'o deficiency in service
on the part of Railways - 25"2# C$C ,+* Ra/.
--&rain started without reserved coach before fi0ed date - Railway held liable to refund ticket price with Rs. 1,
* 2"1# C$C 5 A.$.
Railway tic(et - Change in time of air flight due to technical snags resulting in loss - Complainant not entitled
to any relief for loss of additional railway /ourney * 2"2# C$C ,1+ A.$.
4Railway booking clerk charging e0cess amount for railway ticket without /ustification - :eld liable for deficiency
in service * 1!!*"2# C$C 2,1 ;ar.
4Railway ticket wrongly punched - Recovery of compensation from an official not impleaded un/ustified * Sneh
&ata !Mrs." v. ,ilbagh Singh, 2+"1# C$C 2%% $b.
4&raveller allowed to travel by another train on same ticket as 2st train was late - 2mposition of penalty amounts to
deficiency in service * 1!!3"2# C$C +1* '.C.
Railway transportation - .oods sent through Railway damaged during transit - 2nsurance claim of Rs.
+,*,+5+ as assessed by surveyor allowed to complainant * 1!!3"1# C$C 5+5 $b.
Railway travelling - Complainant boarded wrong train due to a wrong board - Railway authorities bound to
compensate complainant for causing undue harassment * 21"2# C$C *3, Chd.
Relief - 'o relief can be awarded on the mere allegations - $roduction of material evidence is essential to seek the
relief * 1!!*"2# C$C 1!, '.C.
Remand - Complainant not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing by authority delay - Remand of case
/ustified * 21"2# C$C *3, Chd.
4&reatment given to wife of railway employee in Railways :ospital which resulted in her death - As 6edical
treatment is part of Railway service it does not amount to free service - Case remanded - 25"2# C$C ,2% ?.C.
Reservation of seats - ?eat reserved in complainant(s name, wrongly allotted to another passenger - Railways
held liable for deficiency in service * 1!!%"2# C$C *! '.C.
4$assengers having ticket for 22nd Class berth - Dnauthorised people occupied the seats - 2t constitutes deficiency
in service on the part of Railways - 25"1# C$C !, Ra/.
4Courney disallowed despite reservation of seat after payment - Railway authorities liable for deficient service *
#nion o$ %ndia v. Shri Sain ,ass Sobti, 2+"1# C$C **% Chd.
4&raveller got reservation of 2nd A. C. ?leeper - ?eats were not provided - Railway Authority directed to
compensate the complainant * 1!!!"2# C$C +5 6.$.
Rude behaviour of railway staff - Complainant(s valuables stolen during traveling but not due to
negligence of railway staff but due to contributing negligence of complainant 1 Railway staff held liable to pay
Rs. ,,8- only for their inefficient dealing and not for loss of valuables 1 211"1# C$C 33 '.C.
Scooter ,heft - ?cooter stolen from Railway ?cooter ?tand - Railways held liable to pay scooter price to
complainant * 1!!,"1# C$C +3! 6.$.
Seat -llotment - Railway authorities held liable for gross negligence in allotment of seats which caused
hardship to complainants * 1!!1 C$C ,5! &.'.
Service - &icket price does not include en<uiry service of train departure * 1!!3"1# C$C *%1 Arissa
Sleeper Coach - Complainant not provided ?leeper Coach despite confirmed reservation - -eficiency in service
well established * 21"1# C$C ,*2 -elhi
Superfast train - 'on providing superfast train to persons holding 2nd class season ticket, not a deficiency in
service * 1!!5"2# C$C 23 '.C.
,at(al Service - Complainant failed to produce photo identity in original but only Gero0 copy by him -
2mposing penalty by Railway ?taff held to be /ustified - 2%"1# C$C +1* $ondicherry
,heft in railway coach - .olden chain of complainant was removed by miscreants due to lack of electric
light in the coach - Railways authorities directed to pay Rs. +2, as cost of gold chain and compensation * 2+"1# C$C
5+3 '.C.
,heft of luggage - Buggage stolen from reserved compartment - Railway authority cannot escape liability, on
mere ground that complainant had changed coach * 2+"2# C$C ,1% 6.$.
!
,ic(et charges - >ntire amount charged by &&> from passenger - Railway directed to pay Rs. 1, as
compensation8Cost * 2+"2# C$C %1 '.C.
,ic(etless travllers - Railway authorities not liable for deficiency in service if nuisance is created by the
ticketless travellers * 1!!2 C$C *1 '.C.
,rain - 6oving of train without whistling causing in/ury to passenger - ?ufferer to be compensated * General
Manager, '. E. Railway, Gorakh+ur v. Ram Par-esh Singh, 1!!3"2# C$C *1 )ihar
,rain missing - Complainant on en<uiry was told that train was late by one hour - &rain missed due to arrival in
time - Railway not at fault * 1!!3"1# C$C *%1 Arissa
,rain timings - Complainant was negligent in not checking the change in timing of trains - 'ot entitled to any
relief * 1!!,"2# C$C *%5 '.C.
,rain .iolence - Dnruly mob looted complainant(s valuables on Amedkar(s day which was a part of recurring
phenomenon every year - Railway is at fault for not taking precautionary measure - 2*"1# C$C 5%+ ?.C.
,ransfer of berths - &.&.>. is authorised to transfer seats of passengers travelling by same train under Railway
Act - 2*"1# C$C *35 '.C.
,raveling without ,ic(et - &raveling on wrong ticket resulting in imposition of penalty - Railway not at
fault * Sat 'arain v. Station Su+erintendent, 1!!3"1# C$C ** :r.
/ntoward incident - Complainant(s father fell in between track 1 Beg cut, died due to e0cessive bleeding 1
?uch untoward incident was entertainable only by Railway Claim &ribunal and Consumer =ora has no /urisdiction -
21"2# C$C ,!+ '.C.
.iolation of Rules - Biterate persons cannot be e0pected to violate 2ndian Railway Rules * 1!!5"2# C$C 23
'.C.
.icarious $iability - &.&.>. misbehaved with complainant and forceably had driven him out of A.C.
Compartment - Authority liable for act of its employee on rule of vicarious liability - 2*"2# C$C 2,2 Arissa
HHHHH
Consumer Protection Cases
0C1P1C12
- %onthly $aw #ournal
Indispensable for Banks, Courts, Lawyers, Doctors, Industrial Houses, Universities, Department of
Telephone, ailways, Transport, !lectricity, Housin" Board, Urban Development #uthorities, Industrial and
Consumer #ssociations etc$
Ie publish a monthly Baw Cournal namely
EConsumer %rotection CasesF.
Details of .olumes
31 3443 Consumer $rotection Cases )ot in Stoc(
51 3445 Consumer $rotection Cases )ot in Stoc(
61 3446 Consumer $rotection Cases )ot in Stoc(
71 3447 839 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
:1 3447 859 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
;1 344: 839 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
<1 344: 859 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
=1 344; 839 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
41 344; 859 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
1
3>1 344< 839 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
331 344< 859 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
351 344= 839 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
361 344= 859 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
371 3444 839 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
3:1 3444 859 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
3;1 5>>> 839 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
3<1 5>>> 859 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
3=1 5>>3 839 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
341 5>>3 859 Consumer $rotection Cases Rs. ,8- only
5>1 5>>5 839 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
531 5>>5 859 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
551 5>>6 839 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
561 5>>6 859 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
571 5>>7 839 Consumer Protection Cases )ot in Stoc(
5:1 5>>7 859 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
5;1 5>>: 839 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
5<1 5>>: 859 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
5=1 5>>; 839 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
541 5>>; 859 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
6>1 5>>< 839 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
631 5>>< 859 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
651 5>>= 839 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
661 5>>= 859 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
671 5>>= 869 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
6:1 5>>4 839 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
6;1 5>>4 859 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
6<1 5>>4 869 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
6=1 5>3> 839 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
641 5>3> 859 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
7>1 5>3> 869 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
731 5>33 839 Consumer Protection Cases Rs1 :=>&- only
751 -nnual Subscription 5>33 'or three .ols Rs1 36;>&- only
761 Consumer Protection Cases Digest 3443 to 5>>= Rs1 365>&- only
#ddress for Correspondence &
6anager,
Consumer $rotection Cases
12,1, ?ector 3-C,
Chandigarh 1 15 !
$hones J 1%2-2,**3+ and !*1%*1*5%,
>-mail cpcKchdLyahoo.com
www.consumercases.in
HHHH