Train delay: Railways to pay Rs 30,000 to man who missed his flight

New Delhi: In India, train delays are now a common occurrence. However, the apex court of the country, in a move that can be considered significant, seems to be sending a message that this can’t be a norm.

A recent judgement by the Supreme Court, a first of its kind, criticised the Indian Railways for the delayed running of trains. The Court also ordered the Railways to pay Rs. 30,000 (with 9% interest) to a man who missed his flight as a result of the delay.

The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose held that Railways must take responsibility if it can not explain why a train is running late. Railways will be responsible for compensating passengers if they file a deficiency of service complaint with a consumer forum, according to a Times of India report.

Read also: Woman requests cobra to leave her house; watch the viral video

In its ruling, the court said that passengers’ time is precious, and train delays must be held accountable. ‘These are the days of competition and accountability. If public transportation has to survive and compete with private players, they have to improve the system and their working culture. Citizen/passenger cannot be at the mercy of the authorities/administration. Somebody has to accept the responsibility,’ the TOI report quotes the judgement.

The complainant, Sanjay Shukla, was supposed to take a flight scheduled at 12 noon from Jammu to Srinagar with his family. On June 11, 2016, the Shukla family’s train was scheduled to arrive in Jammu at 8.10 am. But it arrived at 12 noon, nearly four hours late. Having missed the flight, Shukla had to take a taxi, which cost him Rs 15,000, and he spent another Rs 10,000 to stay in Srinagar.

Aishwarya Bhati, additional solicitor general, argued for the Railways that rule 114 and rule 115 of Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No. 26 Part-I (Volume-I) does not bind the railways to pay compensation for train delays. However, the bench refused to budge, and the SC upheld the concurrent orders of the district, state, and national consumer forums.