D.O.F. 07.07.2009
D.O.O. 01.12.2010
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010
C.C.No.181/2009
Reghunathan P.K.V.
S/o. Late Krishnan,
Advocate, ‘Sreelakshmi’ : Complainant
P.O. Paral, (Via) Thalassery.
(Rep. by Adv. V. Raju, P.K. Raveendran
& T.K. Ashakumari)
1. Railway Divisional Manager,
Palghat Division,
Southern Railway, Palghat-678 002.
2. Station Master,
Thalassery Railway Station,
Thalassery. : Opposite parties
3 Station Master, Palghat Rly.Stn.(Junction),
Southern Railway,
Palghat – 678 002
4. P.S. Khairkar,
Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
Southern Railway, Palghat 678 002
(Rep. by Advocate K. Vinod Raj)
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 2,00,000 as compensation.
The facts of the complainant’s case in nutshell are as follows : The complainant and his son were passengers in train No.2602 Mangalore – Chennai Super Fast Mail on 24.07.2008. He occupied the berth No.7 in Coach No.S-8, the side lower berth near to the left door and adjacent to the toilet. At Kozhikode station when he went to left side toilet adjacent to his berth he could find that there was no water supply in the closet flush and in the pipe line connected to wash basin. There was horrible and unbearable foul smell. Though complainant searched for the TTE to complaint he was not available since he was in charge of other three, four coaches together. Complainant tried to get the assistance of TTE but he could not find him anywhere in the compartment. When the train reached in Shornur station he requested to a railway employee to help him but he told him to report before the Station Master. Since the train was about to leave he could not approach Station Master. After leaving Shornur he met the TTE and reported the horrible condition of the toilet and the inconvenience suffering to sleep. He then promised that the toilet will be cleaned at Palghat. He has also gave advance information to Palghat Station for filling water in Coach No.8. While the train stationed at Palghat junction complainant opened the toilet but found that there was no water. Anyhow the TTE supposed to relieve from there, before his departure told the complainant that water will be supplied particularly in the left side toilet. Immediately then he found that watering staff is filling water in the right side toilet when there was no complaint of water. The applicant approached the man standing on the right side who was giving direction and asked for help to get water on the left side toilet and to take some measures to avoid the foul smell. But strangely he retorted loudly commanding to go and report complaint before Station Master. Since train was at the verge of departure he requested the man just to inform Station Master through the radio transmitter he was holding. Then the person bursted out and started scolding with insulting and filthy words in front of other passengers. By the time complainants train started to move and complainant was helplessly aboded with shame and insult. The complainant and his son could not sleep comfortably and spent the whole night consuming the horrible foul smell coming from the toilet till arriving Chennai Central. Complainant was suffered with severe head ache due to the foul smell and sleeplessness. Complainant then approached the passengers care cell to lodge a complaint but the person in charge of the care cell gave the web site details only. He came back again at Chennai Central Station in the evening and lodged written complaint. Thereafter a detailed complaint was lodged to the Secretary to Government of India, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi. Complainant was given a reply stating that the said employee was counseled to behave properly with the passengers but did not mention anything against the personal grievances of complaint. The complainant was insulted and defamed by the employees of opposite party. Opposite party committed dereliction of duty and there by caused deficiency in service to complainant and hence this complaint.
Pursuant to the notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegations of complainant.
The brief facts of the contention raised by the opposite parties are as follows : The allegations of the complainant that there was no water supply in the toilet of S-8 coach, there was horrible and unbearable smell in the toilet, staff had not co-operated with the complainant etc are false. Due to intermittent power supply on that day only partial watering was done at Managalore station for Train No.2607 on 24.07.2008. The next nominated station for watering is Shornur and from there watering was done in all the coaches. Further watering was filled again at Palakkad taking extra time for 3 minutes. The existing system in the coach is that if watering is done through any one side of the coach, both the overhead water tanks inside the coach will get filled since they are interconnected with rubber hoses. But for the convenience separate valves are available at both sides of the coach. When the train is on the platform, it is not possible to connect the hose pipe through the valves at the platform side. Both the valves are interconnected with rubber hoses, the overhead tank at both the toilets were filled simultaneously. So there was no deficiency in service on the part of Railways. Railway had attended the grievances of the passenger on the spot. The rest of the case is created by the complainant. There was no complaint from any other passenger in connection with this allegation on that day. There were more than 70 passengers in the Coach on the said date. Opposite party submitted that the train watering at Palakkad station is out sourced and now executed by a private agency and Railway staff is not engaged with water filling. There was no dereliction of duty or intimidation as alleged. Complainant is not eligible for any relief in this account. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A12 marked on the side of the complainant. There is neither oral or documentary evidence on the side of the opposite parties.
Issues 1 to 3 :
Admittedly complainant and his son were passengers in train No.2603 Mangalore- Chennai Super Fast Mail. They were alleged to be suffered much throughout their journey since there was no water supply in the closet flesh and also in the wash basin near by his berth. It is the main allegation that they could not sleep and spent whole night consuming the horrible foul smell coming from the toilet.
Opposite party contended that the allegations of non-availability of water supply, non co-operation of staff of opposite parties etc are false. But at the same time it has come to light that due to intermittent power supply on that day partial watering was only done at Mangalore station for train No.2607 on 24.07.2008. Opposite party’s case is that the next nominated station for watering is only Shornur and from there watering was done in all the coaches. Further watering was filled again at Palakkad taking extra time for 3 minutes.
Complainant adduced evidence by way of Chief Affidavit as follows: At Kozhikode station when he entered into the left side toilet adjacent to his berth he found that there was no supply of water in the closet and also in the wash basin. Though he went in search of TTE as it was urgent since there was unbearable foul smell he could not find him as the TTE was in charge of three other coaches also. When he reached Shornur Railway Station he again tried to get TTE but failed to get him so he approached on of the railway staffs on the platform and requested to attend the toilet for filling of water. The staff told him to go and report the same to Station Master. It was very difficult to go to the room of Station Master crossing three platforms in the eve of departure time. However, he could meet TTE after leaving Shornur and informed him about the foul smell out of the toilet adjacent to his berth. He promised him that the toilet will be cleaned from Palaghat Station. He has also send information to Palakkad Station to fill water in Coach No.8. After reaching Palaghat he found water was not filled. But he could see some employees filling water in the right side toilet under the direction of another person. Complainant approached him with his grievances but he retorted immediately and told him to report before the Station Master. Though requested again he shouted and behaved rudely telling this and that using filthy and insulting words. Since the train started he was compelled to leave and continued the journey suffering the horrible foul smell from the toilet throughout. On 25.07.2008 he alighted at Chennai Central Station and on the same day lodged a written complaint. He has sent complaint to various authorities. Complainant also produced exhibits A1 to A12. Though PW1 was cross examined elaborately opposite party did not adduced any evidence neither orally nor documentary.
Ext.A1 and A2 are tickets that reveal the journey was true. Ext.A3 shows that he has lodged a complaint before the Manager, Southern Railway. Ext.A7 is the reply. Ext.A5 reveals that he has send complaint to Secretary of Government of India, Divisional Manager, Palakkad Sr. B. Nageswara Rao, Joint Director. Ext.B7 informed the complainant that due to intermittent power supply at Mangalore, only partial watering was done at Mangalore for train No.2606 dated 24.07.2008 ie the train by complainant traveled. It is also informed that staff on duty at Mangalore has been taken under DAR action for his failure to give information for arranging water in the next watering station. He has also stated in the letter that the ticket checking staff who manned the Coach S8 upto Palakkad took initiative and ensured that water was filled at Palakkad. Ext.A7 also contain the information that the watering staff at Palakkad has been counseled to be more polite and helpful to passengers.
Complainant was cross examined at length but he has not deposed anything contrary to his actual grievances. It is quite evident that the train in question was not equipped with adequate water facility. According to authorities there are nominated stations for watering for each train. At Mangalore station, the water supply in train was only partial. Next station for watering was Shornur but the concerned staff on duty at Mangalore has not given information for filling water from the next nominated station. Opposite party contended that water was filled at Palakkad Station. But no evidence adduced by opposite parties to prove that water was filled at Palakkad. At least one of the staffs engaged in the duty then could have been examined. It can be very well assumed that some quarrel has taken place with respect to the availability of water at Palakkad Station. As per the version and available evidence Palakkad station is only the station probable for filling the water. While taking into account this probability the allegation of the complainant, which contains substance at least to certain extent cannot be discarded, without supporting evidence that water was filled at Palakkad. There is no evidence to assume that water was made available in the disputed toilet. It was contended by the opposite parties that the start of the train delayed for three minutes for the purposes of providing water at Palakkad. At least this delay could have been proved by adducing documents. It is sure and certain that complainant was put to great discomfort and inconvenience due to non-availability of water up to Palakkad even in accordance with the version of opposite party. In the absence of evidence that water was made available in disputed toilet it can only be assumed that the complainant continued to suffer discomfort and inconvenience due to the non-availability of water. Hence we are of opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is answerable for the liability.
The complainant prayed for an amount of ` 2,00,000 as compensation. It is true that complainant has been suffered discomfort and inconvenience as a result of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. But what is the actual loss suffered by the complainant has not been proved with supporting evidence. Complainant alleged that he was suffered with head ache. But it cannot be assumed as a serious one without referring the treatment note. Even if he suffered head ache that can only be considered as a minor disorder which is recoverable by taking some rest only. Anyway it was not a treatment inviting disorder. Moreover, the allegation of the complainant that the authorities has not responded to his grievances is not totally correct. Ext.A7 reply is an example of response though not satisfactory to the complainant. He has correctly informed the state of affairs to the complainant by his reply. That is a creative approach which deserves appreciation.
That resembles not merely the way of approach that helps to correct the mistakes in future but one step forward in alleviating the aggrieved passenger instead of blatant denial, a usual practice of attempt to escape from the liability. This aspect weigh much in reducing the gravity of deficiency committed by the opposite parties, which naturally reflect in quantifying the damage. It is therefore we are of considered opinion that a sum of ` 5000 will meet the end of justice. Complainant is also entitled for an amount of ` 500 as cost of this proceedings. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation together with an amount of ` 500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of receiving this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Train reservation ticket dated 24.07.2008.
A2. Train reservation ticket dated 27.07.2008.
A3. The triplicate carbon copy of the complaint lodged by the applicant
before Dy. Station Master, Central Railway Station, Chennai.
A4. Copy of the complaint submitted by the applicant before Secretary
to Govt. of India Railways, Divisional Manager, Palakkad Division
and B. Nageswara Rao, Joint Director, Public Grievance Cell,
Southern Railway, Chennai dated.
A5. Original stamped voucher under certificate of posting dated
04.08.2008.
A6. The acknowledgement of complaint of the applicant, dated
06.08.2008.
A7. The reply to the complaint issued from the office to the Rly.
Divisional Manager, Palakkad dated 28.08.2008.
A8. Copy of the application form of the Right to Information Act ,2005
sent by the applicant to the Rly. Divisional Manager, Palakkad.
A9. photocopy of postal receipt and postal acknowledgment.
A10. Reply as per RIA, 2005, dated 29.10.2008.
A11. Copy of the appeal Submitted by the Complainant before the
Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway.
A12. The receipt for despatching appeal through the professional
Courier dated 09.12.2008 and acceptance of appeal at the office of
the Additional Divisional Manager, dated 12.12.2008.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant.
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
