IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 80-10 DATED 08.04.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainants 1. Purushothamlal, <br /> S/o Late B.Vagmal, <br /> 2. Smt.Bharathi,<br /> W/o Purushothamlal,<br /> 3. Kum.Veena,<br /> D/o Purushothamlal,<br /> All R/at No.676, 1st Floor, E & F Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.SVS, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Divisional Railway Manager,<br /> South-Western Railway <br /> Railway Station Building, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.HVS , Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 04.03.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 19.03.2010<br /> Date of order : 08.04.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 19 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainants have filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- each and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint amongst other facts, it is alleged that, the complainants reserved tickets from Mysore Railway Station to travel to Thane via Bangalore in train No.2630 on 14.06.2009. Also, they reserved return tickets. On 29.06.2009, complainants travelled from Mysore to Bangalore and then from Bangalore to Thane. Coach and birth numbers are narrated in detail. It is alleged that, during the journey, the complainants suffered very inconvenience since there was no water available even for mouth wash and lavatory and thereby complainants suffered pain and so also, suffered physically and mentally.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version, opposite party has denied the allegation of the complainants that, there was no water in the coach, in which the complainants traveled. It is contend that, if there was no water, the complainants could have complained the same to the coach attended and to TTE. No other passengers have complained regarding non-available of the water. Also, it is contended that, the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. Also, it is contended that, to make money, the complaint is filed. Certain other allegations made in the complaint are denied.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the first complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, for the opposite party, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainants have proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that they are entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- From the material on record, it is established that the complainants on 29.06.2009 travelled from Bangalroe to Thane in train No.1040. They claim that in coach No.D1 in which they traveled, there was no water for mouth wash or lavatory and thereby they suffered mentally and physically.<br /> <br /> 8. The opposite party denying the claim of the complainants, contended that, at Bangalore water was filled and in this regard, a copy of letter issued by the Senior D.M.E is produced. At the outset, it is relevant to note that, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager who has filed the affidavit has no personal knowledge as to availability or otherwise of the water in the coach, in which the complainants traveled. To substantiate the fact that, at Bangalore or at any other stations, water was filled to the coach in which the complainants traveled, there is no any other cogent and convincing evidence. In the absence of the same, the contention of the opposite party that, there was water, cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 9. Another main contention of the opposite party is that, the complaint is bad for mic-joinder and non-joinder of party. It is stated that, present opposite party has no control over the train in question and hence, the complaint suffers from mis-joinder. Also, opposite party contend since the complainants traveled from Bangalore, the Bangalroe Railway Station officer ought to have made party. In this regard, it is suffice to note that, admittedly the complainants have purchased ticket from the opposite party at Mysore and hence, the contention regarding mis-joinder or non-joinder cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 10. The opposite party further contended that, regarding non-availability of water, the complainants could have lodged complaint with the coach attendnt or TTE. The complainants have specifically alleged in the complaint and stated in the affidavit that, said fact was brought to the notice of coach master and attended. Hence, in the absence of the evidence of coach attendnt or TTE, we have no reasons to dis-believe the claim made by the complainants.<br /> <br /> 11. Advocate for the complainants relied on the ruling reported in II (2003) CPJ 101. The Hon’ble National Commission in this ruling has held that, water facility not available in the reserved compartment, amounts to deficiency in service and that the consumer passenger is entitled for compensation.<br /> <br /> 12. The complainants have claimed Rs.50,000/- each and cost of the proceedings. Considering the entire facts, we are of the opinion that it is on higher side. Awarding of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants is just and sufficient. Accordingly, our finding on the above point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 13. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants within a month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 3. So also, the opposite party to pay cost of the proceedings of Rs.2,000/- to the complainants.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 8th April 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />