Seven years after a delayed train cost a teenage student the opportunity to sit for a crucial university entrance examination, a district consumer disputes redressal commission has ordered the railways to pay ₹9.1 lakh in compensation, holding it accountable for deficiency in service.
The order was passed by the consumer commission in Basti, bringing closure to a prolonged legal battle that began in 2018. The case centred on a student who missed the entrance examination for the BSc biotechnology course at Lucknow University after the train she relied on failed to reach the city on time.
According to the complaint, the student, then 17 years old, was scheduled to appear for the entrance examination on the afternoon of May 7. She boarded the Gorakhpur–Lucknow Intercity Superfast Express from Basti early that morning, expecting to reach Lucknow well ahead of the reporting deadline. Her examination centre was Jai Narayan PG College, and candidates were required to enter the examination hall by 12.30 pm.
The train, which was scheduled to arrive in Lucknow by 11 am, reached the city nearly two-and-a-half hours late. By the time the student arrived at the centre, the gates had closed, and she was denied entry. As a result, she lost her chance to appear for the entrance test that year.
The commission noted that the student had planned her journey reasonably, relying on the published timetable of a superfast train that ordinarily allows sufficient buffer time for such travel. The delay, it held, was neither marginal nor unforeseeable and directly resulted in the loss suffered by the complainant.
Following the incident, the student and her family approached the consumer forum, arguing that the railways’ failure to run the train as scheduled amounted to negligence and caused irreparable academic harm. They contended that the missed examination disrupted the student’s educational trajectory and forced her to pursue alternative options.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
In its ruling, the commission accepted the argument that the delay constituted a deficiency in service under consumer protection law. It observed that while occasional delays may occur due to operational reasons, passengers are entitled to rely on scheduled timings, particularly when the consequences of delay are serious and foreseeable.
The commission further noted that the student had no control over the delay and had taken all reasonable precautions expected of a candidate appearing for a competitive examination. The loss, it said, was not merely inconvenience but a missed academic opportunity with long-term implications.
Taking these factors into account, the commission awarded ₹9.1 lakh as compensation. The amount includes damages for mental agony, loss of academic opportunity and litigation costs. The railways have been directed to pay the amount within the stipulated time frame.
The order is being seen as a significant reminder of institutional accountability in cases where service lapses have tangible consequences for individuals. Legal observers note that consumer forums have increasingly recognised non-financial losses, such as disruption to education or career prospects, while determining compensation.
The case also underscores the vulnerability of students who depend on public transport to reach examination centres, particularly in regions where alternative travel options may be limited. While the commission stopped short of laying down broader guidelines, its observations highlighted the need for greater reliability in time-sensitive passenger services.
For the complainant, the order brings formal closure to a grievance that lingered for years. While the compensation cannot undo the missed opportunity, the ruling affirms that service providers can be held accountable when lapses result in measurable personal loss.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
