Is Indian Railways liable to pay compensation for train running late? Supreme Court agrees to examine plea against NCDRC order

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a plea filed by the Central government against an order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) granting compensation for a train running late against its scheduled time. .A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and Ravindra Bhat issued notice to the respondents, Ramesh Chandra and Kanchan Chandra on the condition that government deposits a sum of ₹ 25,000 with the Supreme Court registry in an interest bearing fixed deposit account. "Issue notice subject to the condition that the petitioners will deposit a sum of ₹25,000 with the Registry within a period of four weeks from today. The amount shall be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit account in a nationalized bank for a short term period with auto renewal facility," the Court ordered. The Court, however, refused to stay the execution of the NCDRC order."We make it clear that we are not staying the execution of the order," the order said. .By way of background, the respondents (in Supreme Court) had boarded the Prayagraj Express to New Delhi. The train was scheduled to reach New Delhi at 6.50 am on April 12, 2008 but it reached the destination only at 11.30 am.This resulted in the respondents missing their flight to Kochi. The respondents moved the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission claiming compensation of Rs. 19 lakh for mental harassment and agony due to the delay. The District Commission ruled against the Railways leading to a revision petition before the NCDRC.The NCDRC, on October 21, 2020 dismissed the claim of the Railways stating that they could have estimated the delay and passed on the information to the passengers including the respondent and hence "this constituted negligence and deficiency in service".The Railways then filed the present appeal before the top court. .It was contended that the NCDRC dismissed the contention of the Railways without considering the fact that Rule 115 of Indian Railway Conference Coaching Rate Tariff No. 26 Part-I clearly states that the Railway Administration does not guarantee arrival and departure of trains as per schedule shown in the time table and is, therefore, not responsible for any damage caused to luggage or any other inconvenience..It was also stated that the delay was beyond the control of the Railways as the delay was caused during the journey and not in departure from its originating station..The Central government, through advocate Anmol Chandan, argued that if the NCDRC order is executed it will open a Pandora's Box thus creating a bad precedent for cases like refund of fares etc.The top court agreed to examine the plea but refused to stay the order. .The plea by the Union of India was filed through advocates Amrish Kumar and Raj Bahadur Yadav..[Read Order]