CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:26/08/2015
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/120/2015
Renjith Damodar.K,
Mithila, Konnanchery, : Complainant
Ayakkad Post, Vadakkancherry-678 683,
Palakkad, Kerala
(Adv.M.P.Ravi)
Vs
- Divisional Railway Manager,
Thiruvananthapuram division Office, : Respondents
Thycaud Post-695 014, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
- Station Master,
Shornur Railway Station,
Shornur Post-679 121,
Palakkad, Kerala.
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma.K.P. , Member
The Complaint is filed alleging that clothes belonging to the complainant was damaged in the train No.12201 from Lokamanya Thilak Terminal to Trichur on 8.6.2015, due to rat menace . The Complainant had travelled in the train from Bombay to Trichur with ticket in 3rd a/c Compartment on 8.6.2015 with confirmed birth along with his family and while travelling in the train his bag containing dress materials were torn due to rat attacks. He immediately got down at Shornur and filed a complaint before the station master of the concerned station and was unable to return in the same train to Trichur and he had to hire a taxi to reach his destination. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version denying the allegation in the complaint . They admit that the complainant was travelling in the train as per ticket No.99251075 in the same date. They also admitted that the complaint was filed before the Shornur Station Master. The further allegation that a saree belonging to the complainant got damaged in the train on account of the rat menace was denied . The complainant should have made a complaint to the train Superintendent. The allegation that the complainant complained
to the TTE and that the TTE advised him to make a written complaint to the Station
Superintendent at Shornur was denied by the Opposite Party. The amount of damages claimed is exorbitant and without any basis. The allegation that a new saree costing Rs. 13000/-was damaged due to biting by the rat was also denied. The concerned coach has undergone primary maintenance at Kochuveli, Trivandrum Division on 06.06.2015 and the rat traps were placed in all the trays in the coach and the same was in place till the departure of the train on 07.06.2015. In addition to that glue pads were also provided underneath the seat No.9 to rat trap. Besides these, the coach was also disinfected with mechanized cleaning done on 02.06.2015 before departure from Kochuveli. The concerned staff also verified that the traps are in order before departure of the train. In addition to that aluminium phosphate used to be provided in the yard and in the station to prevent the rat entering into the compartment where the train is stopped. These are the usual precautions which are prescribed by the authorities and these have been duly done by the Railway Staff. The action taken in the compartment by the staff is duly recorded in the rat trap register. There is no deficiency of service on the party of the opposite parties. The damage if many caused to the complainant can only be due to circumstance beyond the control of the railway administration. As such the opposite party is not liable for any damages. Amount claimed is also excessive and is without any basis. Hence complaint has to be dismissed. Complainant has chief affidavit along the documents. Opposite party filed affidavit along the application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. The application was allowed and complainant was cross examined was PW1. Ext. A1 to A8 was marked from the part of complainant. The complainant produced the clothes before the forum which was marked as MO1. Complainant also filed application seeking permission the cross examine the opposite party. Opposite party was examined as PW1 exhibits B1to B4 was marked from the side of opposite party.
Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
Issues to be considered in this case are.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2.?
The question which arises for consideration is whether any damages are caused while in train and what action was taken by authorities on the complaint received. The complaint was filed only at Shornur. In the complaint complainant alleges that opposite party has not taken any action on the complaint filed by him. Damaged clothes was produced before the forum. It was stated that the train had underwent primary maintenance at Kochuvely 0n 06.06.2015 and the rat traps were kept on 07.06.2015 till the departure of the train. According to the complainant the train started at 3 pm on 07.06.2015 and reaches there by 08.06.2015 and
there is no time to do the maintenance till the departure of the train 08.06.2015. The evidence
tendered by the opposite party was to effect that the housekeeping department is doing the
level best to eradicate this. He had also explained the process . He had also admitted that no action was taken to the complaint filed before the DRM Palakkad. He was also not sure that rat had not entered the compartment from Bombay where the train started. The Opposite party had contended the possibility of the rat entering into complainant’s bag before the starting journey itself. However, the technical rules of evidence does not apply in proceedings before the consumer forums as per the victim laid down in 2001KHC 3355. In proceedings before the Consumer Forums mere preponderance of probabilities may constitute adequate basis of the decision. The rigour of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act is not applicable to proceedings before the consumer forums constituted under the Act. What is required is that they must conduct themselves in accordance with the principles of justice, equities and good conscience. In this particular case it is obvious that the complainant is clothes produced before the forum are rat bitten. Not only that the opposite party has not taken any action for the complaint filed before them to the Shornur Station Master. This amounts to deficiency of service on their part. Hence the complaint is allowed . Regarding the amount of damages, there is no acceptable evidence produce from the part of the complainant. In the above circumstances we direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as damages for the value of the materials damaged along with Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as cost of this litigation. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of August 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 series– train tickets dtd 08-06-2015
Ext.A2 –complaint of complainant dtd 09-06-2015
Ext.A3 –Forum for consumer Justice dtd 30-06-2015
Ext.A4-Acknowledgement Card dtd 2-7-2015
Ext.A5- Acknowledgement Card dtd 6-7-2015
Ext.A6- letter dtd 26-06-2015 sent by Southern Railway Manager to 1st Opposite party
Ext.A7- Forum for consumer Justice dtd 23.7.2015
Ext.A8- Acknowledgement Card dtd 23-7-2015
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1-Attested copy of glue pad register
Ext.B2-Daily Disinfestations Record Register
Ext.B3-Rodent Control Register-yard
Ext.B4-Cleaning Register
Commission Report
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1-Ranjith Damodar.K
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1-C.C.Joy
Cost allowed
Rs.3000/-as cost
