Date of Filing : 15-12-2008 Date of Order : 05-08-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C.No.291/08 Dated this, the 5th day of July 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER M.Lakshmanan, S/o.Kunhambu, R/at Mathuravilla Quarters, Anjera, } Complainant First Railway Signal, Po.Manjehswar, Kasaragod.Dt. 671323. (In Person) 1. Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad. 2. Station Master, Railway Station, } Opposite parties Kuttippuram,Malappuram.Dt. (Adv. P.Narayanan Nair, Kasaragod) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The case of the complainant a school teacher by profession in brief is that he purchased a ticket from Kuttippuram Railway Station counter on 14-09-08 at 5.23 AM to travel in Chennai Mangalore Super Fast Train. The concerned authority issued him a Second class super fast Express Ticket to Manjeshwar. He travelled in Chennai Mangalore Super Fast Train. Actually the train has no stop at Manjeshwar. Hence he has to travel up to Mangalore. As a result of the delay due to unnecessary traveling from Manjeshwar to Mangalore and in return he could not pay the necessary amount for a land deal which he intended to do on that day. According to him the assignor of the property was waiting for his arrival at Manjeshwar by Chennai-Mangalore Super Fast Train since the complainant earlier informed the assignor about his journey in that train. According to the complainant he had already paid a sum of Rs.25000/- as advance to the proposed assignor Krishnan and he lost the advance paid due to his default to reach at the destination on the day and time fixed between him and Krishnan to pay the necessary amount. Hence the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.40,000/-. 2. According to opposite party the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum in view of Sec.13&15 of Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987. On merits it is the case of opposite parties that the second class Super Fast Ticket was issued to the complainant at his demand. It was issued on 14-09-08 Sunday and that was a holiday for all the offices including the office of scribes and document writers and as such the complainant’s claim regarding exchange of money and land business is unbelievable and false. The complainant is residing very close the railway station near the first railway signal and is familiar with Railway station and the stopping of trains at the station and knowing fully well that the Chennai Mangalore Mail has no stop at Manjeshwar station he purchased ticket to the said station. The ticket was issued as per his demand and hence there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of any of the servants of railways. 4. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim. Exts A1 to A3 marked. Opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. Both the parties heard. 5. The contentions that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the case in view of Sec.13&!5 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 is not sustainable in view of Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Since it is an addition to and not in derogation of any other laws. Hence wherever there is cases of deficiency in service the Forum constituted under Consumer Protection Act has got jurisdiction to go in to the merits of the case and take decisions on merits. 6. Regarding merits the complainant explained all the details of his journey from Kuttippuram to Manjeshwar and the necessity of his traveling on that day. He submitted that when the train not halted at Manjeshwar station he could not contact Krishnan over mobile phone who is waiting at his house for the amount. Since the mobile phone battery charge was exhausted by that time. He also deposed that one Bahakta, a document writer was arranged to scribe the agreement on that day. From the evidence adduced by complainant it is clear that on 14-09-08 he was coming back to Manjeshwar with money for the land deal and the deal is broken due to the non halting of train at Manjeshwar. 7. The contention that the ticket was issued at the demand of complainant is also not acceptable. No authorities shall issue tickets without checking the halting stations of the trains. It cannot it be expected that every passenger should know all the halting station of every trains. Further it was brought in evidence that the said train has got a stop at Manjeshwar when it proceeds from Mangalore to Chennai. 8. Issuing a ticket to a station where there is no halt at all for particular kind of train amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In view of the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant due to the non halting of train complainant is entitled for compensation. We fix a sum of Rs.5,000/- on that head. Therefore the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant along with a cost of Rs.1000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which opposite parties shall pay interest @ 10% per annum for Rs.5,000/- from 15-12-08 the date of complaint till payment. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 14-09-08 Train ticket. A2. Photocopy of pass book (Nileshwar Service Co-op. Bank A3.Receipt of Nilehwar Service Co-op. Bank PW1. Lakshmanan.M. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
