KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NOs.469/2013 & 107/14

JUDGMENT DATED:15.07.2014

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

APPEAL  NO.469/2013

The Divisional Railway Manager,

Southern Railway,

Palakkad Division, Rail Bhavan,                                                : APPELLANT

Olavakkode, Palakkad.

(By Adv: Sri. S. Renganathan)

            Vs.

G.R. Manoj Kumar, S/o G. Raju,

15/393, Parakkal House,                                                               : RESPONDENT

Palayapetta, Palakkad Dist.

(By Adv: Sri. V. Jaya Deva Narayanan)

APPEAL  NOs.107/2014

G.R. Manoj Kumar, S/o G. Raju,

15/393, Parakkal House,                                                               : APPELLANT

Palayapetta, Palakkad Dist.

(By Adv: Sri. V. Jaya Deva Narayanan)

Vs.

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Southern Railway,

Chennai  Division, Chennai-600 003.

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Southern Railway,                                                             : RESPONDENTS

Palakkad Division, Rail Bhavan,                                               

Olavakkode, Palakkad.

1. The Chief Claims Officer,

Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003.

(By Adv: Sri. T.R. Rajagopalan)

COMMON  JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

Both these appeals arise out of the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad in CC.No.47/13 dated:25.05.2013.  Appeal 469/13 is filed by the opposite parties and Appeal 107/14 is filed by the complainant.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:

Complainant booked two tickets on 09.12.2012 in Tatkal Seva to travel from Chennai to Palakkad on 10.12.2012 in 3^rd AC coach.  On the arrival of the train, it was found that there was no 3^rd AC coach in the train.  He was informed that 3^rd AC coach is not available.  Himself and his companion were compelled in to travel in sleeper coach.  Certificate to claim the refund of the fare was issued by the TTE.  No prior information was given to complainant regarding the non-availability of the 3^rd AC coach which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore he filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

3.      1^st opposite party is Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai.  Second opposite party is Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad.  Third opposite party is Chief Claims Officer, Southern Railway, Chennai.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum.  The train for which the complainant booked his ticket was Chennai-Quilon special train.  In that train 3^rd AC coach was not provided as due to major repairs those coaches were sent to Perambur workshop.  Alternate accommodation by the next lower class was provided with facility to refund the difference in fares.  The TTE who was in charge of the sleeper coach has informed the passengers about the same and issued the certificate to get refund.  Rule 306 & 307 of Railway administration clearly provides that in such cases passengers are not entitled to claim for compensation.  Section 51 Railways Act also provides the same.

4.      On the side of the complainant Exts.A1 to A6 were marked before the Forum.  No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-.  Complainant has filed the Appeal 107/14 claiming enhancement of the compensation, while the opposite parties filed the Appeal 469/13 challenging the said order.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to enhancement of the compensation?
3. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

7.      Most of the facts in this case are admitted.  Complainant booked two tickets in 3^rd AC compartments in Chennai-Quilon Special Train for travelling on 10.12.2012, but instead of 3^rd AC coach, ordinary sleeper class compartment was provided.  The opposite parties, Railways contended that the two coaches of 3^rd AC suffered major repairs and were sent to Perambur workshop.  But no evidence was adduced by the opposite parties to prove the same.

8.      The counsel for the appellant/railways would argue that in Rule 306 and 307 of Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No.25, it is provided that the passengers are not entitled to claim for compensation in such cases.  But the said Rule is only for the internal administration of the railways and the same is not binding on passengers.  In the present case it is the admitted case that the 3^rd AC coach in which complainant had booked the tickets was not available on that day.  The railway authorities should have intimated the fact to the complainant to that he can make alternative arrangements.  Non providing the AC coach has caused much hardship to the complainant.  That being so the complainant is entitled to the compensation from the opposite parties.  Therefore Appeal 469/13 by Railways has to be dismissed.

9.      Next point for consideration is whether the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Forum is reasonable.  The complainant was provided with sleeper class accommodation.  But of course non providing AC coach had cause much hardship to him.  Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/- which appears reasonable.  Therefore I find no reason to interfere to the said finding of the Forum.  Thus Appeal 107/14 filed by the complainant has also to be dismissed.

In the result both the appeals are dismissed.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

VL.