By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. This complaint is preferred jointly by 34 complainants against the same opposite parties, claiming the same reliefs. The complainants are followers of Ahamediya Muslim Jama-et. Their International Conference was scheduled to be held on 26-12-2005 to 28-12-05. In order to attend the Conference they booked railway tickets for their journey. Complainants reserved tickets to Qadian and back to Shornur/Calicut from the Railway Reservation Counter at Angadippuram, Malappuram District. Their journey towards the destination of Conference was uneventful. This complaint is preferred with respect to non-availability of reserved seats and berths during their return journey. The tickets for return journey were booked on 02-11-05. This reservation was done 60 days prior to the date of travel, which is the maximum possible period of early reservation. As per the reservation for return journey, complainants were to travel from Amritsar junction to Hazrath Nizamudeen station on 30-12-05 by Muri Express. Thereafter the journey was to continue on 31-12-05 from Hazrath Nizamudeen to Shornur/Calicut by Mangala Express in S1 second class sleeper Coach. It is the case of the complainant that this reservation Coach (S1) in Mangala Express Train was cancelled by Railways, and the coach was replaced by a G1 coach which was an ordinary coach with wooden seats. The compartment was jam packed and many of the complainants did not get berths or seats. Complainants had to suffer much inconveniences, mental strain and hardships. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service. Complainants claims Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation with costs of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> 2. Third opposite party has filed version on behalf of other opposite parties. It is submitted that there is no designation by the name and address of first opposite party as shown in the complaint. It is admitted that complainants had reserved tickets for their journey as stated in the complaint. Apart from denying the allegations in the complaint it is stated that during the examination of the train combination of Mangala Express before the placement at Nizamudeen Platform, the proposed S1 coach SR 98286 was found unfit for movement due to damages to feed pipe. The movement of such an unfit coach will be removed from train combination. S1 coach was a sleeper coach. Since there was no spare sleeper coach available at Nizamudeen Station, on that date, a second class coach No.SR 93467/A was attached to the train combinations in place of S1 coach. Reservation chart pertaining to S1 coach was pasted on this Coach for the information of the reserved passengers. Frequent announcements to this effect was made through public information system. Full refund was arranged for passengers who did not travel in the coach. Complainants did not avail this facility arranged by railways. No complaints were received by Train Ticket Examiner or any other officials in this connection. There is no deficiency in service and complaint is to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Second opposite party has filed a separate version. It is submitted that the version is filed by the Regional manager of Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd., on behalf of the<br /> <br /> Managing Director of the said Corporation since the notice of this complaint was wrongly received in the address of the said Managing Director though he is not the party actually impleaded as second opposite party. The party impleaded as second opposite party is “Managing Director, Indian Railways”. That, however, there is no such Authority with such designation in Indian Railways. At the same time, there is a Managing Director for Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd., which is a separate and distinct Corporation separate from Indian Railways. The address of this Corporation is “Managing Director, 9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, New Delhi. As the notice was wrongly served, this version is filed. It is submitted that Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd., has nothing to do with allotment or accommodation in Trains, or the running of trains. Therefore Manager, Indian railway Catering and Tourism Corporation is an unnecessary party.<br /> <br /> 4. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by first complainant on behalf of all other complainants. Ext.A1 series marked on the side of the complainant. Counter affidavit was filed by opposite party No.3 on behalf of others. No documents marked for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 5. The undisputed facts of this case are that complainants had reserved tickets with berths, for their return journey on 31-12-05 from Hazrath Nizamudeen to Calicut/Shornur by Mangala Express Train in S1 2nd class sleeper coach. It is also not in dispute that at Nizamudeen Station this reserved sleeper coach was cancelled. The complaint is resisted by opposite parties contending that the sleeper coach was cancelled due to unavoidable reasons. It is submitted that damage to the feed pipe of the coach was noticed on examination and the coach was removed as being unfit for movement. That on date, there was no second class sleeper coach available for replacement and hence the G1 general coach was<br /> <br /> <br /> attached to the train. According to opposite parties this was announced through the public information system and passengers were given an option of full refund of the ticket also. Apart from the vague affirmation no evidence is adduced by opposite party to prove this contention. Particulars as to when the damage to the feed pipe of S1 coach was noticed and at what time the decision to cancel the coach was taken etc., are not brought on record by opposite parties. The alternative arrangement made by Railways should have been sufficient to alleviate the hardships to the passengers, who were stranded in a place unfamiliar to them. Opposite parties have not referred to any rule/provision in their reply which would justify their action. Admittedly the sleeper coach was replaced by a non-sleeper coach. We are unable to give credence to the defence of the Railways that the sleeper coach was cancelled due to unavoidable reasons and that there was no spare sleeper coach for replacement. We find that not providing berths to the complainants, when they were holding tickets with berths is clear case of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 6. Complainants are entitled to be compensated for the deficiency and inconveniences meted by them. One of the main grounds urged by the counsel for opposite parties, Sri.K.V.P. Muraleedharan, was that, the complainants are unidentifiable since their address and details are not stated in the complaint. This argument is not without force. Thirty four complainants have joined to file this complaint. The full address of the first complainant only is stated in the complaint. Apart from the contention that all of them are followers of Ahamediya Muslim Jama-et, there is no relationship brought in evidence which holds them together. Many of the complainants belong to a family and some of them are even minors. The age of minors differ from 17 years to 6 years. These facts are not candidly stated in the complaint, and neither are the minors properly sought to be represented by their<br /> <br /> <br /> legal guardians. First complainant has filed the affidavit on behalf of other complainants. It is improper for the first complainant to represent the minors. The amount if any payable to the minors definitely can not be paid to first complainant unless he is proved to be their legal guardian. There is no whisper in the complaint regarding the capacity of first complainant to represent others. All the complainants have signed the complaint. On behalf of the six minors their legal guardians have signed in the complaint. First complainant has not filed any petition under Sec.12(c) of Consumer Protection Act seeking permission to file the complaint on behalf of others. It is true that the non-disclosure of the details and addresses of each complainant has made it impossible to identify the complainants. It is not a case where consumers are unidentifiable, but in the present case complainants have made themselves unidentifiable. This will create much difficulty for opposite parties to comply with the order. The non-disclosure as to how many of them belong to a family or whether travelled alone etc., creates difficulty in assessing the compensation also. In the complaint the prayer is to direct opposite parties to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. Nothing is stated as to whom it has to be paid, or the proportionate entitlement.<br /> <br /> 7. It is the say of complainants that five of them managed to get berths from Hazrath Nizamudeen Station itself. That three others got seats from Ratnagiri. No evidence is adduced as to who are the complainants who availed the facility of berth and which of them did not got seat or berth or which of them got seat only. It is alleged that the berths were procured by payment of Rs.1,000/- to the Train Ticket Examiner. This allegation is specifically denied by opposite parties. No evidence is tendered by complainant for payment of any such amount and is only to be discarded. It is contended that the<br /> <br /> <br /> General coach had only wooden seats without cushions and that it lacked food and water supply and toilet facilities. The compartment was heavily crowded and the complainants had to undergo much mental strain and hardships. Undoubtedly the complainants reserved their tickets well in advance with the intention to travel together in a group. Due to the cancellation of the reserved coach, they had to scatter about and occupy the available seats and berths. The complainants are entitled to be compensated for the inconvenience and hardships undergone by them. We consider that an amount of Rs.1,000/- to each adult complainant and Rs.500/- to each minor complainant would be sufficient compensation.<br /> <br /> 8. Though the complaint is technically defective due to the non-statement of the address and details of each complainant, we do not desire to take a technical approach and deprive the complainants of their right. We consider that filing of an affidavit stating the name, age and details/address of each complainant would solve the situation for opposite parties and also rectify the defect. Further the name and address of 1st and 2nd opposite parties were submitted to be incorrect. Third opposite party has contested the case on behalf of Railways. Apparently the addresses of first and second opposite parties are not proper. The notice issued to first opposite party was accepted by Railway Board. Hence we find that first and second opposite parties cannot be shouldered with any responsibility.<br /> <br /> 9. In the result, we allow the complaint and order the following:-<br /> <br /> (i) Third opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to each adult complainant and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to each minor complainant as compensation, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> (ii) Complainants shall file affidavit within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order stating the name, age and full address of each complainant specifying the relationship with any other complainant if any. In the case of minor complainant, it shall specify the guardian who represents the minor complainant. The guardian is permitted to receive the amount on behalf of the minor. A copy of such affidavit shall be send to third opposite party for due compliance of this order.<br /> <br /> (iii) We make no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 15th day of July, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 series<br /> Ext.A1 series : Photo copy of the Reservation Slips. <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br />