It?s time consumer courts strongly discouraged public sector undertakings (PSUs) from indulging in pointless litigation and wasting precious time. And here I refer particularly to the biggest public sector undertaking ? the Indian Railways.

Take a recent case that came up before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Sri Purushottam Kejriwal vs Union of India, RP NO 1943 of 2003). According to the complainant Purushottam Kejriwal, he had a confirmed ticket to travel from Kanpur to Patna, but when the train arrived at Kanpur, he found the coach S-7 in which he was given accommodation, missing He, along with other passengers, approached the railway authorities and requested alternate accommodation, but they were not willing to even make that effort.

Finally, the passengers, including Kejriwal, got their tickets endorsed for journey by other trains on the route. The next morning, he managed to board another train, only to be humiliated and forced to detrain at the next station by the TTE . Eventually, the complainant and the other passengers had to hire a bus to reach Patna.

Considering the treatment meted out by the railways , the compensation of Rs 15,000 awarded by the district forum to Kejriwal, was too small. Yet, the railways challenged this and managed to get the state commission to set it aside, forcing Kejriwal to knock at the doors of the national commission.

Even before the apex consumer court, the railways quoted clause 306 of the Indian Railway Coach Tariff and claimed that the railways did not guarantee reserved accommodation even to those who had confirmed tickets! It also contended that it was a case of refund of fare and the passenger had to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal!

The national commission reminded the railways of some of its earlier orders. In the case of B. Pushpakanthi vs General Manager, Southern Railways, it had held that clause 306 did not give the railways unbridled powers to cancel confirmed reservations. Similarly, in the case of Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railways vs Dr. R.K.Sharma, it had held that the existence of a remedy under Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, did not take away the jurisdiction of the consumer courts to adjudicate on complains pertaining to deficiency in service.

So the next time the railways come up with similar arguments, I hope the consumer court will ask the public sector to pay huge costs to the court. That should deter PSUs in general and the railways in particular, from indulging in wasteful litigation.