Missed Entrance Exam Due To Train Delay: Basti Consumer Commission Holds Railways Liable, Awards ₹9 Lakh Compensation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Basti, comprising Mr. Amar Jeet Verma (President) and Mr. Ajay Prakash Singh (Member), has held the Indian Railways guilty of deficiency in service, observing that the inordinate delay of an Intercity Superfast Train, which caused a student to miss a crucial entrance examination, amounted to negligence and warranted compensation for...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Basti, comprising Mr. Amar Jeet Verma (President) and Mr. Ajay Prakash Singh (Member), has held the Indian Railways guilty of deficiency in service, observing that the inordinate delay of an Intercity Superfast Train, which caused a student to miss a crucial entrance examination, amounted to negligence and warranted compensation for mental agony and academic loss.
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by Samriddhi Singh, father and natural guardian of the student, alleging negligence on the part of the Railway authorities. The complainant's daughter was required to appear for an entrance examination conducted by Jai Narain PG College, Lucknow, on May 7, 2018. The reporting time for the examination was 12:30 PM, while the examination was scheduled to be held from 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM.
To reach the examination centre on time, the student travelled from Basti to Lucknow by Intercity Superfast Train No. 12531, which was scheduled to arrive at Lucknow at 11:00 AM. However, the train reached Lucknow only at around 1:34 PM, with a delay of nearly two and a half hours.
Due to this excessive delay, the complainant's daughter could not reach the examination centre within the prescribed time and was consequently denied entry to the examination hall. The complainant asserted that his daughter was a meritorious student and that missing the examination caused serious prejudice to her academic future.
It was alleged that the Railway authorities neither provided any prior intimation regarding the delay nor offered any satisfactory explanation or alternative arrangement. The delay, according to the complainant, resulted in mental agony, educational loss, and hardship to the student.
A legal notice was issued to the Railway authorities; however, no effective response or remedial action was taken. Aggrieved by the inaction and alleging negligence and deficiency in service, the complainant approached the Consumer Commission seeking compensation for mental harassment, academic loss, and consequential damages.
Contentions of the Opposite Parties (Railways)
The Railways denied any deficiency in service and contended that train delays may occur due to operational and administrative reasons, including traffic congestion, technical issues, or circumstances beyond their control.
It was argued that the Railways do not guarantee exact arrival times and that delay in trains, by itself, does not constitute deficiency in service under consumer law. The opposite parties further submitted that the complainant's loss was consequential in nature, for which the Railways could not be held liable.
The Railways also contended that there was no contractual obligation to ensure that a passenger reaches a particular destination at a specific time for personal engagements such as examinations, and therefore, the claim for compensation was unjustified.
Observations and Decision of the Commission
The Commission observed that the complainant was a consumer and the Railways were service providers within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. It was an admitted fact that the Intercity Superfast Train was delayed by nearly two and a half hours, as a result of which the complainant's daughter missed a crucial entrance examination and suffered serious academic loss.
The Commission held that such an abnormal delay, in the absence of any convincing explanation or proof of unavoidable circumstances, amounted to deficiency in service. It noted that the Railways failed to establish that the delay was caused by factors such as natural calamities or technical failures beyond human control.
The Commission further observed that missing a crucial examination due to the negligence of the service provider resulted in irreparable academic loss, mental agony, and hardship to the student.
Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Railways to pay ₹9,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and academic loss, along with ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses.The Commission directed compliance with the order within 45 days, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum till actual realisation.
Case Details
• Case No.: 371/2018
• Case Title: Samriddhi Singh v. Union of India & Others