DOF.30.10.2009 DOO.2.5. 2011 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 day of 2011 CC.293/2009 T.K.Govindan Thaikottu Kuttiattu House, P.O.Malappattam, Taliparamba Taluk Complainant (Rep. by Adv.Nicholas Joseph) 1. Divisional Manger, The Southern Railway Palghat. 2. Station Master, Ernakulam Junction, Southern Railway, Ernakulam. 3.Station Master, Kannur Railway station, Kannur. (Rep. by Adv.T.Ramakrishnan) Opposite parties O R D E R Smt.M.D.Jessy, Member This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay `25,000 as compensation. The case of the complainant is as follows:-On 23.7.09 complainant reserved two berths in Maveli Express (TrainNo.6604) IIndAC classes, in order to travel from Ernakulam Junction to Kannur on 25.7.09. The berth were confirmed in A1 coach as No.389{UB) and 41(SL) as per ticket No.06071630 bearing PNR No.452-1475119. The journey was on 25.7.09. At the time of arrival of the train. on 25.7.09 at midnight complainant and his daughter with her baby could not found out the coach in which they are reserved.So complainant approached the TTE and inquired bout it. Then TTE informed the complainant that the concerned coach is cancelled, and the journey in the concerned berth is not possible and the complainant and the daughter were required to travel in the general compartment or leave the train. Then complainant protested the same and complainant and his daughter were allowed to travel in a lesser class facing several hardship. While boarding out the train TTE issued the complainant a certificate which is for claiming refund of fare on account of traveling in the lower class due to non-availability of accommodation. Though this certificate is produced at Kannur Railway station ticket counter, balance amount is not refunded to the complainant. The irresponsible act of the railway authorities caused great humiliation and hardships to the complainant and his daughter. The opposite parties have not announced the cancellation of the 2nd AC nor even affixed a notice in the notice board intimating the cancellation of the coach. The complainant and family coming from New Delhi after a long journey reserved berths with an expectation that they could travel up to Kannur conveniently. The opposite parties are liable to pay damages to complainant for the defective service on their part. So the above complaint filed. The opposite party appeared and filed their version. Opposite parties filed version jointly contending as follows: On 23.7.09 the complainant had reserved two berths in Maveli Express(TrainNo.6604 IInd AC class in order to travel from Ernakulum to Kannur on 25.7.0-9, that berth was confirmed in A1 coach as No.38(UB) and 41(SL) as per ticket No.06071630 bearing PNR No.4521475119, that the concerned TTE informed the complainant that the coach No.A1 was cancelled the complainant and his daughter were allowed to travel in a lesser class and issued refund certificate are admitted by opposite parties. The averment that complainant and his daughter and her one year old sucking baby who were boarded from Delhi were shattered by not seeing the Coach A1, that the TTE informed the complainant that the coach NO.A1 was cancelled and the journey in the 2nd AC coach is not possible and the complainant required to travel general compartment or leave the train and complainant travelled 3rd AC facing several hardships, and the station master refused to give the refund are denied by oppsoit parties. Due to unavoidable and unforeseen reasons if any of the coaches are not available, all the passengers could not be accommodated in the train even though reservation tickets are issued. Here 2nd AC coach was not attached to the train due to unavoidable reasons. 3rd AC coach was attached to the trainNo.6604 express in the place of the unfit 2nd AC coach and al the passengers were accommodated in the coach. The concerned ticket examiner provided them lower class certificate with which they could claim the difference of fare between 2nd AC coach and the 3rd AC coach either at destination station or at the divisional office. He had also told them about their option to cancel their ticket and availability of full refund at their boarding station itself and the option available is to travel in the 3rd AC coach and getting the refund of difference of fare as per rules. Complainant has willingly opted the 2nd option of traveling in the 3rd AC coach. The charge revealed the complainant had occupied the berth numbers 20 and 22. If the complainant has approached the counter or sation Manger he would have provided with refund. Non availability of 2nd AC coach was announced at the railway station, Ernakulam and passengers through the Public addressing system. This information was displayed in the notice board in front of the information centre. On the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1, DW1, DW2 and documentary evidence Exts. A1 to A5 and B1 to B4. Issue No.1 It is the admitted case that the complainant and his daughter were reserved berths in 2nd AC coach in Maveli Express for travel from Ernakulum to Kannur on 25.7.09. It is also admitted that the said coach is cancelled due to electrical problem. The main allegation of the complainant is that the said cancellation of the coach is not properly informed to the passengers from the railway station. Hence when the train arrived at the station the complaint who is accompanied by his daughter and one year old sucking baby were forced to face mental agony and trouble. After making objection they were allowed to travel in a lower class facing severe hardship and congestion at the night. Even though the TTE issued certificate for claiming refund of the balance fare charge it was not paid to the complaint at the destination station and directed the complaint to collect the same from Division of the railway at Palghat and thereby the opposite parties humiliated the complainant. This acts of the opposite parties caused deficiency of service towards the passenger who availed service of opposite parties by paying consideration. The opposite parties contended that the 2nd AC coach was not attached to the train due to unavoidable operations and maintenance reasons. Instead of 2nd AC 3rd AC coach was attached to the trainNo.6604 express in the place of unfit 2nd AC coach and all the passengers were accommodated in the coach and the concerned TTE issued the complainant a lower class certificate with which he can get refund the difference of fare between 2nd AC coach and 3rd AC coach from the destination station. The complainant accepted this position knowing fully well about the contingency in railway service. It is an admitted case that the complainant reserved two berths in the 2nd AC coach of Maveli express to travel from Ernakulum to Kannur on 25.7.09 and berth Nos. 38 and 41 were allotted. But 2nd AC coach was not available in the train and instead of 2nd AC coach a 3rd AC coach was attached the train and all passengers were given accommodation, Ext.B1 chart reveals that the complainant and his daughter were allotted berth Nos. 20 and 22 respectively in the 3rd AC coach. The complainant also admits that they occupied their berth and also accepted a certificate from the concerned TTE, who is examined as DW1 for getting refund of the fare difference of 2nd AC and 3rd AC. Ext.B1 is the chart which would normally prepared before one hour from leaving the train from the starting station. It will be published in the notice board of al the concerned stations and also in the train coaches. Passengers have to confirm their berths Nos. with the PNR number noted in the ticket and also from the information counter in the station. Contingencies arise which may entail cancellation of the train itself. In that event being a public service passengers are not expected to claim compensation for their inconvenience and loss. Section 51 clause 2 of the Railways act 1989 makes it clear that “when no accommodation is available in the class of carriage for which a ticket is issued and the holder there of travel in a carriage of a lower class he shall on returning such ticket be entitled to a refund of the difference between fare paid by him and the fare payable for the class of carriage in which he travels”. In this case also a refund certificate was issued to the complainant. But it is quite unbelievable to hear that the said fare difference was not refunded to the complaint from the destination even though complainant produced the certificate and ticket in the counter. In the Lawyer notice which is marked as Ext.A3, there is no demand for return of the fare difference. Any how complainant is entitled to get refund of the fare difference from the opposite parties. From the evidence adduced in this case it is quite clear that complaint has not obtained prior intimation regarding the cancellation of the 2nd AC coach from the station. When a train is cancelled it s the duty of the 2nd opposite party to announce the same as early as possible in order to help the passengers to take alternative steps. Even though it is pleaded by opposite parties that they have affixed a notice in the board intimating the non-attachment of 2nd AC coach in the train, no copy of the same is produced to prove the contention of opposite party is true. The station master Ernakulum, 2nd opposite party here in has to see that the non-attachment of the 2nd AC coach and the alternative arrangements taken is to be properly intimated to the passengers before arrival of the train. This act of 2nd opposite party definitely caused deficiency of service towards the complainant and other passengers for that 2nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complaint and the issue answered accordingly. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 Apart from the oral testimony no other evidence is adduced regarding the loss or inconvenience sustained to the complainant due to the non announcement regarding the cancellation of the particular coach. There should be a moral punishment to the irresponsible officers, who were negligent in discharging their duties properly. Hence we found that opposite parties are liable to pay an amount of `1500 as compensation so as to meet the economic loss and mental sufferings of the complainant. Complainant has to return the certificate when the amount is received. Complainant is also entitled for `500 as cost of this litigation. Thus issues 2 and 3 dare found in favour of complainant. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of `1500 (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) as compensation including fare difference together with a sum of `500 (Rupees Five hundred only)as cost of this litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protecting Act. Complainant has to return lower class certificate issued by opposite parties on receiving the amount. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1. Ticket issued by OP A2.Certificate for claiming refund of fair A3.Copy of lawyer notice sent to OP A4 & A5. Postal AD cards Exhibits for the opposite party: B1.True copy of chart B2. Telegraph message sent by SSE/MAQ to SMR/MAQ dt.20.7.09 B3.Copy of coaching stokc position register B4.Copy of extract of sick memo book Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party: DW1.Selva Guru Nathan DW2.M.N.Vasudevan /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
