Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/39/2016

B.Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

general Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  09.03.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.04.2017

 

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

 

FRIDAY THE 28^th DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

C.C.NO.39/2016

 

 

B.Ramesh,

Advocate,

No.222, New Additional Law Chambers,

High Court Campus,

Chennai – 600 104.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Chairman,

Railway Board,                                 (1^st Opposite Party deleted in

New Delhi – 110 001.                       CMP.No.77/16 on 24.06.2016)

 

2. The General Manager,

Southern Railway,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 22.03.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for   2^nd Opposite Party             : Mr.K.Muthamil Raja

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

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

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for   compensation deficiency in service and mental agony with cost litigation expenses u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant and his friend Saravanan were travelled in West Coast Train from Coimbatore to Chennai on 18.01.2016 at 4.45 a.m in their seat No.34 & 40. They have purchased ticket for Rs. 852.90/-. The said train travels via Salem, Jolarpet, Kadpadi, Arokonnam and arrived at Chennai Central. During the journey the unreserved passengers, beggars, Vendors have occupied their coach. Due to that they were unable to reach toilet. Further in the toilet there was no water facility. The Complainant informed the TTE about the problem and their inconvenience, he replied that he cannot control them and it is not his duty. Further the said TTE refused to give Complaint book to register his Complaint. In a reserved coach only 72 people can travel. However, beyond the permitted passengers in addition 60 passengers have travelled. Therefore the 2^nd Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service by allowing the above said passengers. Thereafter the Complainant sent legal notice dated 19.01.2016 to the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the Complainant filed this Complaint for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony and litigation expenses.

 

           

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd Opposite Party submits that it is not correct that unauthorized person beggars, vendors travelled in the reserved coach. Apart from the passengers having reserved accommodation, RAC passengers who share the side berth will also be seated in the coach. On the Complainant’s date of journey, RAC list could not be cleared and there were two passengers in all the side lower berths. The Complainant had commenced his train journey in Coimbatore at 6.30 am and the train had reached Chennai Central at 2.40 p.m. In reserved coaches sleeping accommodation is provided as per rules from 9 pm to 6pm only. If the Complainant wanted to sleep during day time, he should have requested the other two passengers sharing the lower berth to give room for sleeping.  Watering in the toilets of West Coast Express is regularly done as part of maintenance in the Mangalore Yard and thereafter in the en-route stations namely, Shoranur and Erode. Thus watering had been done in the toilets on the Complainant’s journey date also and his averments are not correct. Also, the Complainant had not asked for any Complaint book and it is denied that the TTE had replied that unauthorized travel could not be checked. TTEs are responsible railway officials and being in public service are conscious of their work and also passengers needs. The allegation is therefore baseless, motivated and has been made for sustaining the false Complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration since no disturbance has been caused to the Complainant and the Complainant had also availed the service. In spite of this fact, the Complainant has now filed the case only to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of the public exchequer. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

 

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 extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The Complainant and his friend Saravanan were travelled in West Coast Train on 18.01.2016 at 4.45 a.m in their seat No.34 & 40 by virtue of Ex.A1 ticket from Coimbatore to Chennai during the journey.

          5. The Complainant alleged deficiencies are that unreserved passengers, beggars and vendors had entered reserved coach and caused inconvenience to them and further there was no water in the toilet and even after informing the TTE also did not take any action.

          6. The 2^nd Opposite Party would contend that there is no such  deficiency as alleged by the Complainant and further watering in the toilet  were done in the Mangalore Yard enroute Shoranur and Erode and therefore the Opposite Party have not committed deficiency in service.

          7. The specific case of the Complainant is that when he brought deficiencies to the TTE, he also did not rectify and refused to give the Complaint book to register his Complaint. The Complainant is an advocate by virtue of his profession the TTE refused to give the Complaint book is not acceptable. Further when the TTE refused to give Complainant book that itself is a deficiency in service. The 2^nd Opposite Party specifically pleaded in the written version that watering of toilet the West Coast Express regularly done and no such incident took place as alleged by the Complainant. This fact not specifically denied in the proof affidavit. The Complainant pleaded in his proof affidavit that the Senior Division Commercial Manager has no right to file written version on behalf of the Opposite Parties. On behalf of the General Manager one Mr.B.Ravichandran filed affidavit as Division Commercial Manager that on behalf of General Manager, Southern Railway he had right to file  written version as authorized by his officer letter No.ADRMS/MAS PGT TVG TPJ & MDU 2003/01/495 dated 29.01.2003. Therefore, y virtue above letter referred the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager is authorized to contest the case filed against the General Manager Southern Railway and hence the objection raised by the Complainant is no sustainable.

          8. The Complainant made bald statement in the Complaint that unreserved passengers beggars, vendors entered the reserved coach and caused inconvenience and there was no water in the toilet. There is no specific statement by the Complainant that in which station the above said person entered the coach has not been stated. It is very easy to make General Statement that the above said persons have entered the coach and caused inconvenience. Further whenever the train starts, in the starting place they fill the water in the toilets and also in the enroute. The Complainant had not stated in which place when the train crosses, he found that the water is not available in the toilet. Therefore the deficiency alleged by the Complainant is a very bald statement and that too   without the supporting evidence of his friend who has alleged to have travelled along with him has not chosen to file his proof affidavit in this case. Therefore considering circumstances of case we hold that the Complainant has not proved the deficiencies alleged by him against the 2^nd Opposite Party and therefore, it is held that the 2^nd Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

 

         

09. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of April 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 18.01.2016                   Train Ticket

Ex.A2 dated         19.01.2016                   Legal Notice sent to Opposite Parties

Ex.A3 dated         NIL                      Acknowledgement

Ex.A4 dated 09.11.2012                   National Commission Order

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      …….. NIL ……

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT