Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/591

GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.J.JOS - Opp.Party(s)

S.RENGANATHAN

01 Nov 2014

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.591/2013

JUDGMENT DATED :30.09.2014

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.482/06 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur order dated : 16.04.2013)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

The Divisional Commercial Manager,

Southern Railway,

Thycaud,                                                                        APPELLANT

Thiruvananthapuram

 

(By Adv.Sri.S.Renganathan)

 

Vs.

 

 

1. C.J.Jos,

Chakkalakkal House,

Church Road,

Porathissery.P.O

Irinjalakuda North

 

2.Frank Antony,

52 H, DIZ Area,                                                                RESPONDENTS

Sector 4, Banglasahib Marg,

New Delhi

 

3. Swenya Frank,

W/o.Frank Antony,

52 H, DIZ Area, Sector 4,

Banglasahib Marg,

New Delhi

 

4. Nora Frank,

Rep.by father Frank Antony,                                   RESPONDENTS

52 H, DIZ Area,

Sector 4, Banglasahib Marg,

New Delhi

 

(By Adv.Sri.G.S.Kalkura for R1 to R4

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway. The complaint is seen filed against the Station Master, Irinjalikuda and Area Manager, Southern Railway, Ernakulam alleging deficiency in service on the part of the railways. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainants had reserved tickets for journey to Chennai on 26.02.2006 in the Rapti Sagar Express. That train was scheduled to reach Irinjalikuda at 10.30 am. The complainants wanted to go to Delhi in an Air Deccan Flight from Chennai on the next day. The scheduled departure time of the flight was 6.10 a.m. But the train reached Chennai only after 6 a.m. As a result, complainants 2 to 4 missed their flight and were forced to purchase tickets in spice jet paying Rs.7047/-. They got refund of Rs.663/- only from the Air Deccan air ways.The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties caused much hardships and financial loss to the complainants. Hence they sought compensation.

            2.        The opposite parties contended before the Consumer Forum that the Trivandrum Gorakhpur Express was scheduled to run with the incoming rake of Gorakhpur Trivandrum of the previous day scheduled to arrive at Trivandrum at 20.25 hrs on 25.02.2006. But it arrived only at 14.10 hrs on 26.02.2006. That was seventeen hours and forty five minutes late. The train needed thorough maintenance before commencing every trip. That was essential considering the amenities of the passengers and for doing rectification works. This together with safety related checks and maintenance took six hours to complete. The delay happened in order to provide adequate time for the maintenance of the train. All efforts were taken to advertise the late running of the train through station notice board public announcing system through telephone etc. Facility with full refund of the fare was provided to passengers if they wished to cancel the trip. The railways disclaimed liability for any inconvenience, expense or damage resulting from delayed cancelled or diverted trains. The delay of the incoming train was due to unavoidable operational reasons. The complainants wilfully travelled in a late running train with full knowledge of probable delay in reaching the destination. They could have resorted to other means of transport. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            3.        Before the consumer forum the first complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on the side of the complainants. One witness was examined on the side o the opp.parties. Exts.R1 to R5 were marked on their side. Upholding the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties the consumer forum awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainants and cost of Rs.10,000/-.The order of the consumer Forum is challenged by the Southern Railways.

            4.        Admittedly, the complainants have reserved tickets for journey to Chennai on 26.02.2006 in the Rapti Sagar Express     ( Trivandrum Gorakhpur ) It is not disputed that the scheduled time for arrival of the train at Irinjalikuda the boarding point of the complainants was 10.33 am. It is also not disputed that the arrival of the train was very much delayed and the train did not reach Chennai at the expected time. In fact, it is admitted that there was delay of 17 hours and 45 minutes for the arrival of the incoming train, the rakes of which were used for the return journey. It is not a disputed fact that complainants 2 to 4 wanted to go to Delhi in Air Deccan Flight scheduled to depart at 6.10 am on the next day. Due to the late arrival of the train at Chennai the complainants could not board the flight and were forced to purchase tickets in the spice jet. The loss claimed on this account is Rs.7047/- .The very admitted facts show that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants / railways. Late running of the pairing train or the need for maintenance and check ups of the rakes are no sufficient justification for late running of any train. The appellants cannot also contend that the complainants could have got refund of the fare and resorted to other means of transport especially in the absence of evidence to show that the complainants were told about the late running of the train sufficiently early. So the consumer forum was fully justified in finding deficiency in service on the part of the railways.

            5.        Coming to the quantum of compensation apart from the additional expenditure for travel to Delhi from Chennai involved the complainants clearly suffered mental tension and loss of precious time. So the mental agony involved is also to be compensated sufficiently. In that way compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Consumer Forum ca not be said to be excessive or unreasonable.

In short, there is no merit in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACAUD

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO.591/2013

JUDGMENT

DATED :30.09.2014

 

                                                                                                                                                 Be/