Orissa

Cuttak

CC/125/2018

Bijoy Ketan Mohanty, Retired District Judge - Complainant(s)

Versus

Divisional Manager,East Coast Railway - Opp.Party(s)

B K Nayak

31 Jul 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

            C.C No.125/2018

1.           Bijoy Ketan Mohanty,

Regd. District Judge,Judges Colony,

Plot No.821/4,Sector-10,C.D.A,P.O:Markat Nagar,

Town/Dist:Cuttack-753014.

 

2.           Sri Gunanidhi Patra,

Retired Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Plot No.1/D/74,Sector-11,

C.D.A.P.O:Markatnagar,

Town/Dist:Cuttack-753014.

 

3.            Sri B.K.Routray,

Retired Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Plot No.7-D/1323,

Sector-9,C.D.A,P.O:Markat Nagar,

Town/Dist:Cuttack-753014.

 

  4.          Sri Satyabadi Behera,

S/O: Chaitanya Behera,Retd.

Stamp Reporter & Oath Commissioner,

Orissa High Court,Plot No.7-D/311,

Sector-9,C.D.A.PO:Markatnagar,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                                 … Complainants.

 

                                     Vrs.

 

1.         The Divisional Railway Manager,

East Coast Railway,Khurda Division,

At/PO:Jatni,Dis:Khurda.

 

2.        The Station Manager,

Cuttack Railway Station,

At/PO:Station Square,Cuttak.                                             … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    19.12.2018

Date of Order:   31.07.2023

 

For the complainants : Mr. B.K.Nayak,Advocate.

For the O.Ps.1& 2.       :     Mr. Chaitanya Nayak,Adv. & Associates.

 

       

Sri Debasish Nayak,President            

Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition in short is that they are senior citizens being former senior judicial officers who had been with their family members to Darjeeling & Gangtok on 29.4.2018 and had booked Railway tickets in Yosabantapur Kamakshya Express.  On the date of journey i.e. on 29.4.2018 when they all reached the Cuttack Railway station in order to commence their journey and were waiting with their bags and baggages for arrival of the train, as per the Railway information on a particular platform, at the particular point where the display board of the Railway had indicated that the B-4/B-2 coaches would halt.  But quite surprisingly when the train came, they could notice that the coaches of the said train where the Railway authorities had displayed to be halting was quite different from the places where those coaches had stopped.  Thereby, the complainants alongwith their spouses, children, bags and baggages had to suffer physically and mentally and had to rush to the particular places where their reserved berths/coaches were since because those coaches had halted at quite a far-off place on that platform.  The complainant no.1 immediately had lodged a complaint through his mobile phone bearing no.9437234378 to the Railway authorities in this regard which was registered vide No.W/EO/IUR/000 356 238 dated 30.4.2018.  But interestingly, the Railway authorities had closed down such complain of the complainant no.1 on 1.5.2018 with an intimation to the complainant by mentioning therein, “Your Complaint No.W/EO/IUR/000 356 238 has been attended and it is now closed”. Thus, the complainants having no other way out had to approach before this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to pay them compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards their mental agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards their litigation expenses.  They have also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

In order to prove their case, the complainants have filed copies of their Railway tickets alongwith the copy of the complaint as lodged and copy of the reply thereon by the O.Ps.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their joint written version wherein they have mentioned that the case of the complainants is not maintainable.  According to them, one Surya Kanta Devata, an out sourced staff had received from the Central Enquiry,Khurda Road at 9.40 hours about the coach positions of the said train to be ENG-WLR-B1 to B8-PC-B9-A1 to A4-H1-B10 to B12 WLLR but according to the complainants, the coach position was like ENG-A1 to A4-H1-PC-B1 to B12,which do not tally with each other.  The O.Ps have urged through their written version that the coach position as provided by the complainants in their petition is incorrect.  According to the O.Ps, the Railway is in no way responsible if any passenger suffers mentally or physically for his own faults, to which no remedy or service available with the Railway.  The O.Ps have stressed upon the coach position as provided by them was correct and that which is mentioned by the complainants is incorrect for which according to them, there is no deficiency in their service.  They have also urged through their written version that the Coach Indication Boards are not the only source of information in respect of placement of coaches at the platform.  According to them, Face to face Enquiry Counter& Frequent Public Announcement System are also available to aware the passengers.  Accordingly, they have prayed to dismiss the complaint as filed by the complainants.

TheO.Ps have also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and have also provided copies thereof together with some other copies of documents in order to prove their stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainantsis maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainantsare entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments of the complaint petition, contents of the written version, the written notes of submission as filed, the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that one thing is not disputed here in this case that the complainants while commencing their train journey from Cuttack Railway Station had to suffer because of some dislocations/mis-communications.  In this context the O.Ps have relied upon a decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vrs. KLM Railway Dutch Airlines and another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 66.  On perusal of the said decision as relied upon cited on behalf of the O.Ps, it is noticed that the facts and circumstances of the case in hand is quite different to the facts and circumstances of the case as per the decision relied upon.  Still it would be pertinent that in the said case, the erring party had apologized and had paid compensation of Rs.2500/- as found out on perusal of the said case as relied upon by the O.Ps here in this case.

Now, here in this case, it was due to the faulty LED coach awaring system at the platform as made available for the passengers in order to enable them to take position at the appropriate place so as to smoothly enter into the particular coach wherein they have their respective reservedtickets.  The train no.12551, Yosabantapur Kamakhya Express being a long route express train undoubtedly is a quite long train in length and if proper signalling of the coaches are not made, it would definitely resultin a chaotic situation thereby making the passengers rush hither and tither due to the short stoppage of the train at the Cuttack Railway platform.  The plea of the O.Ps through their written version is that they had indicated correct coach positions in their display boards but on scrutiny of the copies of their documents itself it is found out that the displayed coach positions that day and time for the said train was incorrect.  As it is noticed that the said train had a 5 minutes stoppage at Cuttack Railway platform and by wrongly displaying the coach positions of the said train undoubtedly had caused grave dislocations/inconvenience to the intending passengers those who were to travel in the said train on the said day and time. The complainants of this case who were commencing their journey alongwith their family members, children, bags and baggages had to rush from one point to other of the said train due to such erroneous display of the coach positions at that time in the platform at Cuttack Railway station on that day.  Moreso, the complainants as it appears were all senior citizens being retired personnels had with them their bags and baggages alongwith their family members and children.  The complainants have relied upon a pertinent decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in order to justify their claim.  In the case of Ms. B.Puspakanthi and another Vrs. General Manager,S.E,Railway reported in 111(2003) CPJ 3 (NC).  It is held that since because the passengers had suffered difficulties while undertaking their journey inside the coach at their respective berths, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had up-held the decision of the Dist. C.D.R. Commission by confirming the compensation as awarded in favour of the passengers alogwith the return of their reservation charges. Thus, this Commission undoubtedlyvisualises here in this case the inconveniences as caused by the O.Ps to the complainants on the said day, time and place by their erroneous display of the coach positions that day and time for the said train, which amounts to deficiency in their service and nothing else.  This issue goes in favour of the complainants.

Issue no.i.

Keeping in mind the above discussions as made at issue no.ii, the case as filed by the complainants who are residents of Cuttack district and when the alleged incident had taken place at Cuttack, it  appears to be maintainable.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the complainants.

Issue no.iii.

From the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the complainants are undoubtedly entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                ORDER           

The case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- to the complainants towards compensation for their mental agony and harassment as caused to them together with a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards their litigation expenses.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 31^st day of   July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                     

                                                                                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                          Member