Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/379

SOUTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

A V DEVARAJAN - Opp.Party(s)

S RENGANATHAN

22 Feb 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 379/16

JUDGMENT DATED :22.02.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.376/2014

 on the file of CDRF, Kannur )

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT.R                          : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

1. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai – 3

 

2. Senior Divisional Manger, Southern Railway, Palghat, Palakkad

 

3. Station Master, Tirupathi, Southern Railway, Andhra Pradesh

 

4. Station Master, Railway Station, Kannur – 1

 

(By Adv.Sri.S.Renganathan)

 

VS

 

RESPONDENTS

1. A.V.Devarajan, S/o.Balakrishnan, Shastha Nagar, Koonam.P.O, Panniyoor, Kannur

 

2. Janaki.A.V, D/o.Narayanan, Shastha Nagar, Koonam.P.O, Panniyoor, Kannur

 

3. Roopesh.P, S/o.Raveendran, Smruthi House, Podikkundu, Pallikkunnu.P.O

 

4. Sathi.P, S/o.Raveendran, Smruthi House, Podikkundu, Pallikkunnu.P.O

 

5. Raveendran.P, S/o.Narayanan, Smruthi House, Podikkundu, Pallikkunnu.P.O

 

6. Narayanan.C. S/o.Kannan, Sreekalliyani House, Punnokkappara, Azhikode, Kannur

 

7. Padmini.O.P, D/o.Kelu, Sreekalliyani House, Punnokkappara, Azhikode, Kannur

 

8. Chandran.P, S/o.Chathu, Sanila Nivas, C.H.Nagar, Morzha.P.O, Kannur

 

9. Saraswathi.P.V., D/p.Sankaran, Sanila Nivas, C.H.Nagar, Morazha.P.O, Kannur

 

10. Chandramathy.P, D/o.Narayanan, Chittodan House, C.H.Nagar, Morazha.P.O, Kannur

 

11. Chanran.P., S/o.Narayanan, Kuttancherim House, C.H.Nagar, Morazha.P.O, Kannur

 

12. M.Narayanva Swami, S/o.K.P, Madhavan Pillai, Shiva Mandiram, Kurumathur.P.O, Karibam, Kannur.

 

13. Eswari Amma, D/o.T.Kunhappa, Shiva Mandiram, Kurumathur.P.O, Karibam, Kannur

 

14. Gangadharan.T.V, Thivadappal House, Pulipparamba, Talipparamba.P.O, Kannur

 

15. Karthiyayini.C.C, D/o.Kelu. Choran House, Azhikode South, Kannur

 

16. Vijayan.K, S/o.Krishnan, Padmavilasam House, Kurumathur.P.O, Karimbam, Kannur

 

17. Haridasan, S/o.Ambu, Near GMLP School, Azhikkode.P.O, Kannur

 

18. Gireesh.K.C, S/o.Balakrishnan, Chellettan house, Karumathur.P.O, Karimbam, Thrissur

 

(By Adv.Smt.Suja Madhav)

 

78503207062.  

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        :JUDICIAL MEMBER

                The opposite parties in CC.No.376/2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which they were directed to pay a sum of Rs 5000/- each to the complainants, along with the cost of Rs 2000/-.

                2.      The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. On 31.10.2014 the complainants 1 to 18 were the passengers in a Train No.2285, travelling from Tirupathi to Kannur. They have booked tickets, two months prior to their journey. When they boarded the train from Tirupathi station, the reservation compartment was overcrowded and they could not avail the seats and the birth booked by them. The group consisting of aged and ailing persons found it very difficult to travel such a long distance without berths. Eventhough they approached the Tirupati station Master, he was helpless to vacate the unauthorized passengers from the reserved compartment. The train was detained for boarding the complainants but they were not able to use their berths / seats. The ladies were not even able to go to the toilets. The unauthorized passengers in the compartments were using pan masala, smoking, drinking and indulged in all sorts of nuisances and unlawful activities. The opposite parties failed to provide protection or safety of the passengers. Thus the opposite parties committed gross negligence, deficiency in service which caused the complainants to suffer throughout their journey. The opposite parties 1,2 & 4 filed version contending that they are unnecessary parties to the complaint as they are in no way involved in the matters alleged in the complaint. Only the third opposite party can answer these allegations as the cause of action alleged to have happened is in their jurisdiction. So the opposite parties 1,2 & 3 may be exonerated from any liability. In the version filed by the third opposite party he denied the allegations made by the complainant. It is stated that due to Sabarimala season and due to RRB exam at Tirupati on 21.11.2015 there was heavy rush of passengers in train which was unexpected. The unauthorized passengers who occupied the reserved berths/ seats were vacated then and thereby the railway officers and all the reserved passengers including the complainants were provided with births / seats from the journey commencing station till the destination station. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the third opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the third opposite party.

                3.      The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 documents on behalf of the complainant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite parties have filed the present appeal.

                4.      Heard both sides. Perused the records.

                5.      The district forum, considering the evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5, found that the complainants suffered much difficulties and hardships during their journey because of the non availability of their reserved births. There was no contra or rebuttal evidence from the side of the opposite parties. The district forum found that the inconvenience caused to the complainants was due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the railway authorities are bound to provide the facilities booked by the passengers for their comfortable journey. Since the opposite parties failed to provide such facilities, the complainants suffered much hardships and mental agony. So the opposite parties are entitled to compensate the complainant. The district forum considered that the reservation tickets, Ext.A1 series shows that those were issued from the limits of Palakkad division on receipts of ticket fare. Apart to that during the journey through the limits of Palakkad division also the complainants suffered the same difficulties. So the opposite parties 1,2 & 4 cannot escape from their collective responsibilities. So the opposite parties 1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation to the complainants. We find that there is no reason / ground to interfere with the finding of the district forum.

                6.      The district forum directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs 5000/- each to the complainant along with cost of Rs 2000/-. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the district forum directed them to pay Rs 5000/- to each complainant, 18 persons and it may be reduced. It has come out in evidence that the complainants were able to travel in the same train, to complete the journey and reached the destination, even though they suffered much difficulties. Considering all these facts we consider that Rs 5000/- ordered as compensation is to be reduced to Rs 3000/- .The cost ordered by the district forum is just and reasonable. Hence no interference is called for.

                In the result,  the appeal in allowed in part. The order passed by the district forum is modified as follows. The opposite parties / appellants are directed to pay Rs 3000/- each to the complainants along with Rs 2000/- as cost. The said amount is to be paid within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties / appellant shall liable to pay interest at the rate of 8% on the said amount till realization.

                At the time of filing of the appeal the appellants have deposited Rs 25,000/-. The respondents / complainants are permitted to obtain the release of the said amount on proper application to be divided among them, in equal shares to adjusted / credited towards the amounts ordered.

 

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT.R                         : MEMBER

 

BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 379/16

JUDGMENT DATED :22.02.2019