Orissa

Cuttak

CC/71/2014

Mohit Agarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager,Sourthern Eastern Railways - Opp.Party(s)

M Agarwal

19 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.71/2014

 

(Mr.) Mohit Agarwal,

S/O:Sri Binod Agarwal,

Permanently residing at Sree Ram Kutir,

Hazari Lane,Telenga Bazar,Cuttack-753009,

Orissa.                                                                                                ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

 

1.        Southern Eastern Railways,Howrah Division,

Represented through its General Manager,At:Strand Road,

BBD Bag,Fairley Place,Kolkata-700001.

 

2.       East Coast Railways,Khurda Division,

Represented through its General Manager,

At:East Coast Railway Sadan,Nandankanan Road,

Chandrasekharpur,Bhubaneswar-751017.                                       ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     27.05.2014

Date of Order:   19.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Self.

For the O.Ps               :          Mr. Lokesh Kumar,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                             

            Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a tatkal Railway ticket from the O.P bearing PNR no.6328851745 in order to travel from Howrah to Cuttack in the third A.C compartment alongwith his wife on 1.4.14 in Howrah Madras Mail bearing train no.12839.  He was allotted berths bearing no.50 & 51 in coach no.B-2 and he had paid a sum of Rs.1802.47p towards the fare including a sum of Rs.64/- towards the service charge.  At about 11.45 P.M. in the night of 1.4.14 the complainant with his wife had boarded the train and when he was going to sleep at the upper berth as allotted to him through his ticket, he found that the berth no.51 was a broken berth which may fall down at any moment.  The foam was missing in the said berth and sleeping over the said broken berth without any foam therein was quite uncomfortable for the complainant.  He contacted the train conductor/mechanic and the TTE and had shown them the precarious condition of the said berth but they all had expressed their helplessness for it.  They also had not provided him the complaint book in order to lodge complaint therein even though he had demanded for it.   But on his repeated urge, the TTE ultimately had handed over to him the complaint book wherein the complainant had mentioned his grievances and a copy thereof was provided to the complainant bearing KGP no.188752  dated 2.4.14.  Even though he had requested for a separate berth he was not provided with the same for which he had to suffer all through the night.  Thus, the complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency in service by the O.P and has claimed therein compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the O.P  for his mental agony towards the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.P alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

            In order to support his case, the complainant has filed copy of his railway ticket and copy of the complaint as lodged by him.

2.         The O.P has contested this case and has filed a written version wherein he has raised the point of maintainability of the complaint petition.  According to the O.P, the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties for which he has prayed therein to dismiss the case.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether the case is bad for non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary party ?

iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P & if there was practice of any unfair trade by the O.P ?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Issue no.iii.

Out of the four issues as made out, issue no.iii being the pertinent one is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

            After going through the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition and by perusing the copies of documents as available being filed by the complainant, it is noticed that infact the complainant had travelled in Howrah Chennai Mail bearing train no.12839 on 1.4.14 in the third A.C of B-2 coach having been allotted berths no.50 & 51.  The discomfort as urged by the complainant and as per his complaint lodged in the complaint book of the O.P gains ample corroboration from the written note of submission as filed on behalf of the O.P wherein the Divisional Commercial Manager,Southern Eastern Railway one Mr. Saugat Mitra admits about the said defect which was rectified later through carpenter.  Thus, it clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P since because even after taking the service charges and the fare charge, the complainant was made to suffer all through the night on 1.4.14 while travelling in 3^rd AC compartment of Horwah Madras Mail being not provided with a proper berth.  Thus, there was indeed deficiency in service and practice of unfair trade by the O.P as alleged by the complainant and this issue goes in favour of the complainant.

 

Issues no.i ii & iv.

            The contention of the O.P is that the case is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  According to the O.P, the complainant had made the Eastern Railway and the East Coast Railway as O.Ps here in this case but on scrutiny it is noticed that the complainant had made the General Manager of Southern Eastern Railways as party to this case alongwith the East Coast Railways.  Thus, it cannot be said here that the case is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.  Accordingly, this Commission finds that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.P.  The O.P is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and sufferings alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 19^th    day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                             Member