<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 31.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 16th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2344/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.A.Chandrasekharan,772, 60 ft Road,BEML 5th Stage,Rajarajeswarinagar,Bangalore – 560 098.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Divisional Manager,South Western Railway,Karnataka State,Bangalore.Advocate – Sri.S.R.Khamrozkhan<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant being a senior citizen booked the e-ticket from Palakkad to Yeswantpur on 26.10.2008 so as to travel in Train No.6528 Yeswantpur express. It is a confirmed reservation. Berth is allotted in S 3 compartment but when complainant boarded the said Train the berth number was changed by concerned TTE and he was shifted to side berth, which is not at all convenient for him. Due to the carelessness and negligence of the TTE and OP department he was forced to spend sleepless night. Though he made repeated requests and demands to OP TTE to accommodate him properly in view of the confirmed ticket but it went in vain. Thus complaint felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The so called ticket which complainant has booked to travel in Train No.6528 on 26.10.2008 e-ticket wherein no berth number is mentioned. According to OP, complainant without any protest undertook the journey as per the schedule. Complainant being the senior citizen he was suitably accommodated with a lower berth, though he had the upper berth as per reservation No.64. Complainant did enjoy the benefit of the lower berth but still has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence OP is not liable to pay any compensation. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence along with evidence of TTE and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that on 26.10.2008 complainant did travel in Train No.6528 in coach No.S 3, having berth No.64. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that when he boarded the said train his berth No.064 was converted into 72 without his consent and he was forced to occupy the side berth of the Train which was rather more inconvenient to him. Complainant is a heart patient to have a smooth and peaceful journey he booked the ticket well in advance and got the reservation for the lower berth. With all that to the reasons best known to TTE he changed his berth number. Hence he felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that berth No.64 is upper berth. Taking into consideration the age and health conditions of the complainant who claims to be the heart patient, TTE allotted to him a lower berth. Of course it is a side berth. Complainant did complete the journey. He has not made any complaint to the local station masters of any stations with regard to the inconvenience and the trouble faced by him.<br /> <br /> 8. We have gone through the pleadings and the other relevant documents produced by the litigating parties. We are satisfied that OP has extended its helping hand to suit the convenience of the complainant. If complainant really faced any problem or personal difficulties in undertaking journey on the lower berth that too side berth he would have made a written complaint to the concerned station master, but no such steps are taken.<br /> <br /> 9. It has come in the evidence that as a good gesture OP came forward to accommodate the complainant conveniently. Though complainant availed the services of the OP but to the reasons best known to him has come up with this imaginary complaint. To substantiate the defence OP got filed the affidavit of the TTE who was in-charge of the said compartment. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the OP and his witness which finds support from the undisputed documents relied on by them. <br /> <br /> 10. So viewed from any angle when the complainant has undertook the journey without any oral or written complaint his belated complaint after lapse of nearly one year from the date of journey rather can’t be believed. The evidence of the complainant is self contradictory whereas the defence set out by the OP get support from the undisputed documents as well as corroboration from their official TTE. No such cross examination is made to OP or TTE. Their evidence remains unchallenged.<br /> <br /> 11. As against the unimpeachable defence set out by the OP the allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless. Viewed from any angle there is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant is not entitled for relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 16th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />