Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

6/2013

Ms.M.Kamala, - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, Southern Railway, - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

05 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                            Complaint presented on  :  26.12.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  05.05.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE  05^th  DAY OF MAY 2016

 

C.C.NO.06/2013

 

Ms. M. Kamala,

No.19. Fourth Street,

Ashok Nagar, Vilangudi,

Madurai – 625 018.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

..Vs..

	1. General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.   2. Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, NGO Annexe, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.   3. Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Rly Colony, Madurai – 625 016.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  04.01.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

Counsel for Opposite parties                    : Mr. N.R.Narayanan

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The Complainant is a lady, senior citizen, aged about 72 years residence at Madurai out of necessity to help, nursing and attention to her daughter-in-law at Chennai, she used to travel frequently from Madurai to Chennai and back. On 03.06.2012 the Complainant travelled in train No.12636, Vaigai Express in the II class ladies general coach from Madurai to Chennai. The ladies coach was fully occupied by elderly passengers. The train stopped at Mambalam out of platform and the door steps was at a high level from the ground with ballast stones. The Complainant and other ladies persons experienced Herculean task to alight from the coach. The passengers beyond her pushed to down and she fell down with her baggage on the ballast stones.  Sustaining bruises on her right leg and hand causing bleeding and consequently she spent Rs.150/- for treatment. Again, another trip on 28.08.2012 in the same train at Mambalam Station she experienced the same difficulties. Though the train is most prestigious superfast express, the Complainant and others were put to severe hardship. Once again the Complainant under gone similar experience,  while she travelled from Chennai to Madurai in Pandian Express, Train No.12637 on 23.10.2012 at Madurai Junction. The Complainant felt very difficult to detrain at Madurai junction. The Complainant wrote several letters to the Opposite Parties,   there was no proper response. The guard and other officials of the Southern Railway violated Rules of the Railways; therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint for Deficiency in Service of the Opposite Parties for compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties submits that at Madurai junction, non-Interlocked working for station remodeling has been taken over from 08.09.2012 to 18.10.2012 with pre-NI/NI working duly suspending all points and signals. One of the major works in remodeling was extension of Platform No. 1 to accommodate 26 coaches against 24 coaches and the work was completed on 26.10.2012. Due to the above constraints train no.12637 on 23.10.2012 was received on platform No.1 where the extension work was going on. During this period, traffic staff members led by duty SM were deputed to help the public with the aid of hand signals.  Temporary Rails Level platform was available during this period. Although, this kind of inconvenience to public is unavoidable whenever development work is in progress, every effort is taken to minimize the inconvenience and at the same time it must be accepted that in the long run, improvised facilities are only to the advantage and comfort of the travelling public. Hence on the day in question when the Complainant travelled, the inconvenience was caused due to unavoidable circumstances and not by negligence or wanton and hence there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party as alleged by the Complainant.  As far as Mambalam station is concerned the Complainant had experienced difficulty, as alleged by her, in getting down from the coach which was stopped out of platform area on 03.0.2012 and 28.08.2012. Whenever trains are running with the full capacity of coaches and depending upon local conditions, there is a possibility of coaches being berthed out of platform. However, in such cases, running to the best of their ability try to ensure that proper berthing of train formation on the platform area is done by moving the train accordingly. Station Masters are also regularly counseled to monitor the reception of all trains for proper berthing so as to avoid such complaints. The Complainant was informed of this fact vide letter No.M/G 60/26(A)/12 dated 12.10.2012 duly expressing regret for the inconvenience caused to her. Here also there is no negligence or deficiency as alleged by the Complainant. Hence the Opposite Parties prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT:1

          The  case of the Complainant is that she travelled in train No.12636, Vaigai Express on 03.06.2012 and 28.08.2012 from Madurai to Chennai and at Mambalam Station the train was berthed out of platform causing much inconvenience in getting down  not only for her and also for other passengers, Who travelled in the compartment and the compartment for which she travelled in train No.12637, Padian Express of 23.10.2012 was also berthed at Madurai Junction out of platform and thereby stopping the train at out of platform and causing inconvenience by getting down from the train the Opposite Parties committed Deficiency in Service.

          5. The Opposite Parties categorically stated in the written version that at Madurai Junction  remodeling and extension  of platform no.1 work taken  over from 08.09.2012 to 18.10.2012 by duly suspending all points and signals to accommodate 26 coaches against 24 coaches and the said work was completed on 26.10.2012. The incident took place on 23.10.2012. When the work completed on 26.10.2012 at platform no:1 the incident alleged by the Complainant could happened  on 23.10.2012 happened at Madurai Junction is accepted. However the incident happened only due to the extension of the work the train coaches was stopped out of the platform area. The extension of the platform work was done only for the benefit of the public passengers. Therefore the train stopped at Madurai Junction on 23.10.2012 cannot be construed as negligence or Deficiency in Service on the part of the Opposite Parties at Madurai Junction.

          6. However on 03.06.2012, 28.08.2012 the train No.12636 Vaigai Express was stopped out of platform area and the  Complainant who travelled in the parcel cum trains guards coach forced to get on at Mambalam from high level from the ground with  ballast stone. However the Complainant is a senior citizen aged about 72 years certainly experienced difficult to get down from the train at Mambalam is accepted. The Complainant wrote Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 letters to various authorities of the Opposite Parties about her difficulties during her travel. The Opposite Parties public grievances replied under Ex.A6 regretting for the inconvenience caused by the Complainant at Mambalam Station. The 2^nd Opposite Party issued a circular dated 12.12.2012 to all guards and Station Master as follows.

    T.No.12636 MDU-MS Vaigai Express stopped one coach in rear out of platform on 28.08.2012, which invited a public Complaint and also one RTI representation calling details in this regard. The above incident could have been avoided had the guard of the train spoken to Loco Pilot to draw the train ahead so as to avoid the rear coach standing out of platform.

in the above circular it was categorically admitted that on 28.08.2012 as alleged by the Complainant one coach was stopped out of platform area and the same could have been avoided had the guard spoken to the Loco Pilot to draw the train ahead in order to rear coach also to stand out of platform. The above circular clearly establishes that the guard committed mistake. If the guard could have been spoken to the Loco Pilot on 28.08.2012 the last coach of the Vaigai Train where the Complainant travelled could have also berthed on the platform at Mambalam Station and Complainant would not have suffered to get down from the train..The Complainant experienced similar experience on 03.06.2012. Even Ex.A10 general rules for the railway in rule 4.36 empowers the guard shall be in charge of stopping is movement of the train for traffic purposes. Therefore the failure of the guard stopping the train on 03.06.2012 and 28.08.2012 out of the Mambalam Station and caused inconvenience to the express including the Complainant proved that the Opposite Parties committed Deficiency in Service.

7. POINT:2

          Since the Complainant suffered with mental agony by getting down from the train and also sustain bruises and bleeding injuries establishes that she is entitled for compensation and also medical expenses with cost of the Complaint.

          In the result the Complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are ordered jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.150/- (Rupees one hundred and fifty only) to the Complainant towards medical expenses and also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only)  towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.          

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 05^th day of May 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.10.2012                   Complainant’s letter to Divisional Railway

                                                Manager Madurai

Ex.A2 dated 26.11.2012                   Complainant’s letter addressed to the Divisional

                                                Railway Manager

Ex.A3 dated 26.11.2012                   Complainant’s letter addressed to the General

                                                Manager Chennai

Ex.A4 dated 12/14.09.2012    Complainant’s letter addressed to Divisional Rly.

                                                Manager, Chennai

Ex.A5 dated  07/08.06.2012   Complainant’s letter dated addressed to the

                                                Addl.G.M., Chennai

Ex.A6 dated 12.10.2012                   Divisional Rly Manager, Chennai’s reply No.

                                                M/G.50/26(A)/12 addressed to the Complainant

Ex.A7 dated 12.12.2012                   Southern Railway Letter

Ex.A8 dated 12.12.2012                   Southern Railway (Chennai Division)

Ex.A9 dated 11.01.2013                   Southern Railway (Chennai Division)

Ex.A10 dated  NIL                            Extracts From the General Rules (1976) for Indian

                                                Railways

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                      …..NIL…..

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT