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 17th day of November 2009 CC/127/2006 1. Cheriyandi Majeed, Cheriyandi House, Kuruva, P.O.Kadalayi. 2. Cheriyandi Azeez, Cheriyandi House, Kuruva, P.O.Kadalayi. Complainants (Rep. by Adv.M.K.Anilkumar & P.Pradeepan) 1. Senior Divisional Commercial Manger, Divisional Office, Southern Railway, Palakkad. 2. Chief Reservation Supervisor, Southern Railway, Kannur. Opposite parties 3. General Manger, Southern Railway, Chennai. (Rep. by Adv.K.Vinod Raj) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.1179/- along with Rs.100000/- as compensation and cost. The case of the complainants is that they have reserved to travel from Kannur to Bombay by train No.6346, Nethravathi Express for the journey on 21.3.06 and the first complainant reserved return ticket for the same train on 28.3.06. But in the morning as on 21.3.06, it was found that the tickets have been lost and they approached reservation counter on the same day and intimated the matter and requested to issue duplicate tickets. But the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that the duplicate ticket will be issued only after lunch and hence the complainants approached the 2nd opposite party at 2 p.m. But at that time 2nd opposite party informed that duplicate ticket for onward journey will be issued only after payment of half of the ticket charges and the duplicate ticket for the return journey cannot be issued. But even after repeated request they are neither issued duplicate ticket nor refunded the money. The proposed journey to Bombay is to consult with an expert doctor, since the first complainant is suffering from cardiac disease and hence without return ticket the complainant could not travel. So because of the non issuance of tickets he was not able to consult with the expert at Bombay and hence his condition became serious and had undergone a bye-pass surgery. Because of this he had suffered so much mental and physical agony and financial loss. The complainant had issued a lawyer notice to opposite parties on 24.3.06, the opposite parties neither paid the amount nor replied it. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notice from the Forum both the opposite parties were appeared and filed their version through Adv.K.Vinodraj. 3rd opposite party was later on impleaded as per the contention of opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties admits that the complainants have reserved tickets to travel from Kannur to Bombay by train No/6346 Nizamuddin Express on 21.3.06 and complainant No.1 reserved return ticket also. But they submit that the 1st complainant approached the reservation counter at 10.30 am and requested to make necessary arrangements to prevent the fraudulent use of the ticket. As per oral request the counter clerk indicated the position in the system and advised the complainant to make an immediate written request before the 2nd opposite party for issuing duplicate ticket. The opposite parties were ready to consider the request of complainant immediately if written request was given subject to the rules. But the complainant did not turn up for 7 hrs. and hence the counter clerk was under the belief that the tickets were found. So in order to facilitate the journey the position of the ticket was marked as ‘found’. Otherwise the complainant cannot travel on the ticket, if the lost ticket was found. But at 17.30 hrs. the complainant had given written request and as per the request only the 2nd opposite party issued instructions to the counter clerk to issue duplicate ticket. Since the above details were entered in the system it was not possible to issue duplicate ticket for return journey and hence the entire trouble is caused due to the negligence of the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and exts.A1 to A4. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The complainant’s case is that the 1st complainant is a heart patient and in order to consult with an expert heart specialist at Bombay he along with 2nd complainant reserved seats for journey from Kannur to Mumbai on 21.3.06 and fist complainant reserved for his return journey from Mumbai to Kannur on 28.3.06 in train No.6346,Nethravathi express. But they lost the ticket and hence they approached the opposite parties for duplicate ticket and the 2nd opposite party agreed to issue duplicate ticket and endorsed the same on the application. But they were not willing to issue a duplicate one. The complainants produced that letter and marked it as Ext.A1 and A2 and A1 (a) and (b) and A2 (a). This exhibit proves the case of the complainant. But the opposite parties reason for non issuance of duplicate ticket is that the complainant had submitted written request only after 7 hours from the time of reporting lost and hence the counter clerk was marked as found in order to facilitate the journey. The Exts.P1 and P2 dt.21.3.06 clearly shows that it was given to issue duplicate of the lost ticket and there is an endorsement that issue duplicates. Moreover, it wasnot mentioned the time of submitting application. On the other hand the complainants deposed that the opposite party wanted them to file written request after lunch and hence they had applied at 2’0 clock. But the opposite party has not produced any documents to disprove the statement of complainants. So marking of ‘found’ without any information from the complainant itself shows the deficiency on the part of the opposite party. More over the opposite parties have not turned up before the Forum to prove their case. So from the available evidence on record, it can be inferred that the complainant had submitted written request at 2 p.m as per the direction of the opposite party. Above all the complainant pleaded that the first complainant is a person who is suffering from cardiac disease and the proposed journey is to consult an expert doctor at Mumbai. So it can be seen that the first complainant is a person who deserves some kind attention of the opposite parties who are also the part and parcel of the society. According to the complainant due to non-issuance of the ticket he was not able to consult the doctor at Bombay, which ultimately resulted to the Bye-pass surgery. What ever it may be the contention of the complainant cannot be discarded as such. Moreover Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice issued by the complainant. But opposite party has not issued any reply to the notice also. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainant by refunding the price of the ticket along with Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost and the complainants are entitled to receive the same. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.1179/- (Rupees One thousand one hundred and seventy nine only) along with Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only)as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the letter dt.21.3.06 sent to OP A2. Copy of the letter dt.21.3.06 sent to OP with endorsement of OP A3.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A4.Copy of the Medical bill of Sahakarana HBrudayalaya Pariyaram Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1. 1st Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
