BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 198/2010 Filed on 03.07.2010

ORDER DATED: 17.08.2015

Complainants:

1. Shaji. S.S, S/o Sukumarapillai, Thekkumkattil Veedu, Anakudi, Vamanapuram P.O

2. Lekshmi Anand, W/o Shaji,                            ..do..           ..do..
3. G. Mohanlal, S/o Gopalapillai, Kaustubham, Chirayinkil P.O.
4. B. Radhamani, W/o Mohanlal, Kaustubham, Chirayinkil P.O.
5. Vandanalal, D/o Mohanlal, Kaustubham, Chirayinkil P.O.
6. Aromal A.S, S/o V.K. Suresh Kumar, Puthooram, Sarkara, Chirayinkil P.O
7. R.H. Renu, S/o Ramachandran Pillai, Pournami, Market Road, Attingal.
8. J.R. Lekshmi, D/o Renu, Pournami, Market Road, Attingal.
9. J.R. Krishna, D/o Renu, Pournami, Market Road, Attingal.
10. Viswamani, D/o Viswanathan, Kavuvila, Koonthalloor, Chirayinkil.
11. Avinish. V.J, S/o Viswamani, Kavuvila, Koonthalloor, Chirayinkil.
12. V. Arsha, D/o Viswamanai,    Kavuvila, Koonthalloor, Chirayinkil.
13. K. Leena, W/o Chandrachoodan, Keerthanam, Varkala P.O.
14. Keerthi. C.Nair, D/o K. Leena, Keerthanam, Varkala P.O.
15. Ayush, S/o K. Leena, Keerthanam, Varkala P.O.

Opposite parties:

1. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai.

2. The Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

                          (By Adv. S. Renganathan for 1^st & 2^nd O.P)

3. The Manager, Alhind Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd., Vrindavan Building, T.C 15/50, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram-10.

This C.C having been heard on 30.06.2015, the Forum on 17.08.2015 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

There are 15 complainants in this case who belongs to Sreechithiravilasam Boys High School, Chirayinkil.  Southern Railway represented by its General Manager is the 1^st opposite party, the Divisional Manager, Southern Railway is the 2^nd opposite party and the Manager, Alhind Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. is the 3^rd opposite party.  The case of the complainant is as follows:  The staff including their family members decided to conduct a family tour on 01.11.2009 to visit Ernakulam Dutch Palace, Synagogue and to return on the same way by train.   Their forward journey is by air and they proposed to return to Thiruvananthapuram by train No. 2075 Jan Shatabdi.  So the 1^st complainant who was authorized to book tickets for the tour paid Rs. 3,834/- to the 3^rd opposite party and reserved tickets for all the 42 person on 31.10.2009 by electronic IRCTC’s e-ticketing service.  All of them got confirmed tickets. Of the 42 passengers the reservation for 8 of them was provided in D5 coach and all others were provided in SL2 coach.  When the complainants got into the SL2 coach it is noticed that the coach is an ordinary one which is used in local passenger train and the capacity of the same was only 50 and no reservations seats were provided for the complainants to whom reserved seats were 55 to 58, 66 to 71 and 78 to 81.  Opposite parties issued e-tickets for the seats which are not provided in the coach.  As a result complainants including aged people and children were forced to travel without seating accommodation from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram even after reserving seats with extra payment well in advance.  Though the 1^st complainant reported the grievances to the ticket examiner he turned deaf ear to the complainants.  His version is that the train has extended to Guruvayur and no suitable coach is available, hence this difficulty.  After completing the journey, 1^st complainant on behalf of all the complainants sent many letters to the opposite parties regarding this incident and to refund the fare, but nothing happened.  So they approached this Forum claiming compensation and refund. 

Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed joint version and 3^rd opposite party set exparte.  The contention of opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:  SL2 coach running in 2075/2076 Jan Shadabdi rake was coach No. CZRJ 02706 but the same was due for periodic overhauling.  So the railway administration was left with only two conditions either to replace the coach or to cancel the coach.  On considering the larger public interest of the customers and if cancellation is done it would have caused much difficulties to passengers and so a decision was taken to replace the coach with the best option i.e coach No. SLR 67703.  This coach was attached to the train and it is admitted that it was having lesser number of seats.  It may be noted that complainants had travelled up to their destination.  Complainants were provided with accommodation in the same train and as such there is no locus standi or cause of action for this complaint at all.  The charts of 2075 Express dated 01.11.2009 were produced along with version.  Their contention is that the 16 passengers whom the complainant alleges to have reserved seats and later not provided seats in D12, D10 and D7 coaches.  They have been provided with confirmed seats vide 36, 37, 38, 79, 80, 81 in D12 coach, seat No. 57, 58, 80, 81 104, 105 in D10 coach and set numbers 38, 39, 50 & 51 in D7 coach.  If the complainants have failed to occupy these seats even after all these sincere efforts made by railways, he alone is responsible for all the alleged difficulties experienced by him.   If at all the complainants had contacted the ticket examiner he would have correctly directed the complainant and the party.  This is a clear case of negligence on the part of the complainant and these opposite parties could not be blamed for the negligence of the complainant.  This information was available at the information counter, automatic interactive telephone enquiry system (IVRS No. 139) and the notice board at Ernakulam Junction.  If the complainants are not satisfied with these arrangements they had the option of cancelling the tickets and getting full refund or they could have cancelled the ticket and got tickets by the next train.   Opposite parties 1 & 2 have sought the best available option in the interest of public and if the coach was cancelled 82 passengers would have adversely affected.  As such the attachment of SLR coach having lesser number of capacity was made with good intention to benefit the customers at large.  This was an unavoidable situation and if the original coach was put into service in the train it would have been a violation of the safety norms and caused major accident.  Information regarding the cancellation of the coach was provided to the passengers through the public announcement system and the notice board at Ernakulam junction station.  The allegation contained in the complaint that extra charges were paid by the complainants is not true.  Only the fare applicable to Jan Shadabdi Express had been paid by the complainant.  The allegation that the ticket examiner had turned deaf ear to the complainant is also denied since it is far from truth.  The allegation that standard coach was not provided to the complainants is also denied.  There was no promise of any manner regarding the type of coach at the time of issue of the ticket or at any point of time.  Railway is not doing any type of discrimination either to the complainants or to any other passengers.   There is no deficiency or negligence from the part of the opposite parties or their employees.  Every effort was taken by the opposite party to ensure that customer’s interest was safeguarded to the maximum possible extent.  Railways is owned and managed by Govt. of India and if such complaints are entertained, it would drain the national wealth in no time as thousands of trains are operated and huge volumes of passengers transported every day by these opposite parties.  So they prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

Complainant filed affidavit along with 7 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P7.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed joint affidavit along with 4 documents. 

Points raised for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, reliefs and costs if any?

Points (i) & (ii):- Perused the documents and heard both sides.  Complainant alleges that though he possessed reserved confirmed tickets from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram in Jana Shadabdi Express they were not given accommodation since the coach was changed.  So they were compelled to travel without seating facility.   On going through the documents produced by railway, one of them is the extract from Railway Act 1986.  The case of the complainant is that reserved accommodation is guaranteed by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties denied this allegation by quoting Railway Act and Rules.  Railway is owned and managed by Govt. of India and is following the provisions of Railway Act 1986 and the Rules made thereafter and such rules are contained in Indian Railway Conference Association, Coaching Tariff (IRCA) No. 26 Part I Vol. 1.  This book enumerates general rules, rates and the conditions for the conveyance of passengers and luggage.  Rule 306 of IRCA Coaching Tariff Part I Vol. 1 says “Reserved accommodation not guaranteed-Railway administration do not guarantee reserved accommodation whether seats, berths, compartments coaches or carriages by any particular train and will admit no claim for compensation for inconvenience, loss or extra expenses due to such accommodation not being provided or attached to times by which asked for”.  This document is Ext. D1.  Their contention is that SL2 coach running in 2075/2076 Jana Shadabdi rake was coach No. CZRJ 02706 but the same was due for periodic overhauling.  So the only option with the Railways is to replace the coach or cancel the coach.  The charts of 2075 express of 01.11.2009 was produced which is marked as Ext. D2, D3 & D4 which clearly shows that the complainants in the present complaint who have reserved seats and later not provided with seats had been reallotted with seats in D12, D10 and D7 coaches.  They have been provided with confirmed seats vide 36, 37, 38, 79, 80 & 81 in D12 coach and seat Nos. 57, 58, 80, 81, 104 & 105 in D10 coach, seat Nos. 38, 39, 50 & 51 in D7 coach. This information was available at the information counter, automatic interactive telephone enquiry system (IVRS No. 139) and the notice board at Ernakulam.  Again complainant had the option of cancelling their journey tickets and getting full refund, if the journey by the new coach was found to be inconvenient.  Or they could have cancelled the ticket and got tickets in the next train.  But complainant chooses to travel by the same train 2075 after knowing all these facts.  If the complainants are failed to occupy these seats even after all these sincere efforts made by the Railways they alone are responsible for the alleged difficulties experienced by them.  Moreover, the SL2 coach was cancelled for periodic overhauling taking into consideration the safety of large number of passengers using the train.  So no deficiency can be attributed on the side of opposite parties.  If the original coach was put into service in the train, it would have been a violation of the safety norms and caused major accident in which the scene might have been different.  So considering the facts and evidence before us, we are of the opinion that opposite parties have given more importance to safety of the public and they have satisfactorily done what they can do when a regular coach was cancelled without causing inconvenience to large number of public.  So we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties and complainants failed to prove that they have sustained much loss and inconvenience by the act of the opposite parties.  So the complaint is to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17^th day of August 2015.

    Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER 

            Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                    : PRESIDENT

            Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 198/2010

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - IRCTC’s e-ticketing service electronic reservation slip dated

            26.10.2009. Transaction ID No. 0154030697

P1(a) - IRCTC’s e-ticketing service electronic reservation slip dated

            26.10.2009. Transaction ID No. 0154036059.

P1(b) - IRCTC’s e-ticketing service electronic reservation slip dated

            26.10.2009. Transaction ID No. 0154046563

P2     - Transaction dated 31.10.2009.

P2(a) - Transaction dated 31.10.2009.

P3     - Copy of legal notice dated 16.02.2010

P4     - Acknowledgement card

P4(a) - Acknowledgement card

P5     - Postal receipt dated 16.02.2010

P5(a) - Postal receipt dated 16.02.2010.

P6     - Lr. No. G 50/PG/2009/560 dated 01.03.2010.

P7     - Authorization letter dated 01.11.2009.

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb