Kerala

StateCommission

A/602/2017

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

D B BINU - Opp.Party(s)

S RANGANATHAN

24 Jul 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.602/17

 

         JUDGMENT DATED:24.07.2018

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT

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

SRI.RANJIT R.                                                             :MEMBER

 

Divisional Railway Manager,

Southern Railway,

Thiruvananthapuram Division.                                                   : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. S. Renganathan)               

                                               

            Vs.

 

D.B. Binu, Advocate,

Cochin Chambers of Lawyers,

Providence Road, Kochi-682 018,                                             : RESPONDENT

Ernakulam District.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh)

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

 

        Opposite party in CC.726/13 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam has filed this appeal challenging the order of the Forum dated 22.12.2014, with a petition to condone delay of 903 days.

2.     Notice given respondent/complainant has entered appearance through counsel.

3.     We heard both sides on the question of delay as well as the merits of the appeal challenging the order of the Forum.  Opposite party/appellant is Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division represented by its Divisional Manager.  Complainant alleging deficiency of service by the opposite party with respect to the operation of some passenger trains running in railway routes under the control of the opposite party sought directions from the Forum to the opposite party to provide sufficient number of coaches, minimum 18 in two passenger daily trains with compensation of Rs.80,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-.

4.     Opposite parties filed version contending that coaches in each train are fixed considering infrastructural needs and resource availability and also in the routes where the two trains with respect to which additional coaches are sought a number of other trains are also provided daily.

5.     The Forum below appreciating the materials produced by both sides allowed the complaint passing the following Order.

1. The opposite party shall provide 15 coaches (the normal compo of train No.56302/56303) in passenger daily train numbers 56302 and 56303.
2. The opposite party shall peremptorily take steps to provide 18 coaches in passenger daily train numbers 56302 and 56303 to abate the agony of the complainant and the commuters, within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3. The opposite party shall pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation and costs of the proceedings for the reasons stated above, within a  period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till payment.

6.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that compensation ordered has already been paid to the complainant, which is not disputed.  The railways have also complied with the direction to provide 15 coaches in passenger daily train Nos.56302 and 56303 is the further submission of the counsel.  However the direction issued to provide 18 coaches in passenger daily train Nos.56302 and 56303 is practically impossible in the present scenario where these two trains are running in routes with stops at small stations as well not having the facility of sufficient platform to accommodate 18 coaches according to the counsel.  Appellant is really aggrieved only with the 2^nd direction issued to provide 18 coaches in the above two trains is the submission of counsel seeking for vacating that direction.  Factual aspects pointed out by the counsel over the difficulties of railway in providing 18 coaches in the two trains which at present have stops even in small stations having platforms which cannot accommodate 18 coaches of a train is not disputed by the counsel for respondent.  Be that as it may the larger question is whether the Forum could have issued the directions as given in its order to the railways a public undertaking over the inclusion of additional coaches in trains running through its routes.  Several considerations like infrastructural facilities provided capacity of engines to pull the coaches, availability of coaches etc. have to be taken into consideration in fixing the coaches of a particular train.  A consumer Forum cannot direct the railways to provide additional coaches or any public transport agency to run a transport vehicle through a particular route.  Such directions on no account can be claimed by any party imputing deficiency of service against a public transport agency.  Since the railway has already complied with the directions to provide 15 coaches to the two trains and also paid compensation as fixed by the Forum we are interfering with such directions.  However, the direction given to provide 18 coaches in the two trains which no doubt has been passed in excess of the jurisdiction conferred cannot be sustained and it is vacated.  Condoning the delay involved, appeal is allowed vacating the direction of the Forum to the opposite party to take steps to provide 18 coaches in train No.56302 and 56303.  Both parties are directed to suffer their costs.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH :JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT R  :MEMBER

 

VL.