SC States Railways Should Make Up For Train Delays Unless The Reason Is Out Of Control

NAME OF THE CASE AND CORAM

• Northern Western Railway and Another v. Sanjay Shukla
• Coram: Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose
• Citation: LL 2021 SC 427

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The Supreme Court ruled that every customer’s time was important and valuable
• If the railways were delaying the customers, then it was their responsibility to compensate for it.
• They were also asked to explain the reason for their delay and if their reason was reasonable enough then it could be sided off.

CASE BACKGROUNDS

• In an important ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that each passenger's time was “expensive” and that Railways were required to compensate for “train delays and delays,” unless it was determined that the delay was due to other reasons which were beyond anyone’s control.
• A court composed of Judges MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose denied Northern Western Railway to appeal the decision of the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (NCDRC).
• The Executive Council of Leading Consumers had affirmed the compensation order, approved by the Consumer Court, allowing the claim of one Sanjay Shukla along with three others who missed a connecting flight to Srinagar in 2016 when the train arrived four hours before its scheduled arrival in Jammu Tavi station.
• In addition to the cost of booking air tickets, the applicant and others had to take a taxi to get to Srinagar from Jammu and they took a train to Alwar in Rajasthan.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

• The High Court upheld the NCDRC ruling requiring Northern Railways to pay Rs 15,000 for taxi fares, Rs 10,000 for booking expenses, and Rs 5,000 per person for emotional pain and legal costs.
• He disagreed with the statement that train delays could not be considered a deficiency in railway operation, and some regulations state that there would be no liability to compensate for train delays. trains, as there may be a number of reasons leading to a delay in train movement.
• It was observed that, if and until there was evidence explaining the delay, and it was established and demonstrated that there was a delay beyond its control and/or even for any reason, justification for the delay, it would be their responsibility to compensate for the delay. and late arrival of trains.
• It was said that the Railways did not provide evidence to explain the delay and late arrival of the train in Jammu.
• The order stated that the Railways were required to provide evidence and an explanation for the train delay in order to verify and demonstrate that the delay was due to reasons beyond their control additional trip.