Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/136

GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOHNY - Opp.Party(s)

s renganathan

12 Jun 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 136/16

JUDGMENT DATED : 12.06.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.201/15

 on the file of CDRF, Kalpetta, Wayanad)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A                   : MEMBER

APPELLANTS / OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The General Manager, Southern Railway of Park Town,

Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600003

 

2. The Station Master, Kozhikkode Railway Station, Kozhikkode

 

(BY Adv.Sri.S.Renganathan)

 

565.  

RESPONDENT

Johny, S/o.Joseph, Kuzhivelil House, Kunnamangalam    Post, Mananthavady Taluk , Wayanad

(Party in person)

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                :JUDICIAL MEMBER

                     The opposite parties in CC.No.201/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad, Kalpetta, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which they were directed to pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation and Rs 3000/- as cost to the complainant.

 

                2.     The averments contained in the complainant are in brief as follows. The complainant had booked railway tickets through internet from the house of the complainant and took print out of the tickets on 09.06.2015 for travelling from Kozhikkode to Kottayam on 15.06.2015 for the purpose of admission of his son Thimothi. The complainant had paid a total ticket charge of Rs 232/- . The seats reserved was in D2 compartment seat numbers allotted were 82 and 83 in Parasuram Express being the Train No.16649. When the complainant entered in the compartment, it was seen that some other passengers are sitting on the seats reserved by the complainant and they refused to give seats to complainant and only when the train reached at Parappanagadi, the complainant and son got seats. The complainant and son have to adjust the seats with two other passengers on the seat for three passengers. There was no railway officer to look into the matter. The complainant is having serve back pain and that is why he decided to reserve the seat by advance booking and paid more amounts for a comfortable journey. When the train reached at Kottayam, the complainant made complaint about his grievance to the T.T.E and other officials who was there in A/c compartment. They told that it is not possible for them to come each and every compartment to verify the reserved seats and the passenger has to adjust or they need not travel in the train and the railway can exist without the income from such passengers. The overcrowded journey and non availability of seat caused back pain to the complainant and it has become severe and he has to do Ayurvedic treatment. The experience in the journey caused great pain and mental agony to the complainant and his son. The service of the opposite party is defective for which they liable to compensate the complaint. Even though the loss suffered is more, complainant is limiting his claim to Rs 1,00,000/- . The opposite parties are liable to pay the cost of the complainant. Hence prays before the forum to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and to pay the cost of the proceedings.

 

                3.     Opposite parties filed version raising the following contentions. These opposite parties are admitting the fact that the complainant and his son travelled to Kottayam from Kozhikkode on 15.06.2015 with two reserved seats in D.2 compartment of Train No.16649 (Parasuram Express). Except these the opposite parties denying all further averments contained in the complaint as these are stated only with an intention to grab public money by tarnishing the reputation of the Indian railways. All the other averments contained in the complaint are denied by the opposite parties, since these opposite parties have no knowledge about the health condition of the complainant. It is admitted in the complaint that, the complainant has made his first complaint to the concerned TTE only when he reached at his destination by using the seats reserved by him for his travelling. It is quite natural that there will be some rush in the Calicut station when the train comes and halt for five minutes. It is a general phenomenon that the passengers reserved to each compartment is forced to board the coaches by neglecting the crowd formed for the time being. Whenever the train moves, this crowd will disappear and each passenger will occupy his nominated seats. If any trouble occurs, even after the departure of the train from the next railway station, normally a passenger who could not occupy his set will meet the concerned TTE and will submit his grievances. In this case the complainant has not made any complaint to the concerned TTE when the train moves from Kozhikkode Railway Station or before getting seats from Parappangadi station. As the complainant performed his journey in his allotted seat up to Kottayam, it is presumed that there was no deficiency in service rendered by the railways in this case.In the complaint, the complainant has stated that he lodged a complaint about his grievances to the TTE and other offices who were seen in A/c coaches. The complainant is put under strict liability to prove the complaint allegedly made to the TTE and the grievances suffered by him during the course of his journey. The allegations made against the TTEs are baseless and it amounts to derogatory remarks against Railway Officials to get sympathy from this Hon’ble Forum. Here also the complainant is legally entitled to prove the allegation made against the TTE. The complainant has not suffered any mental or physical agony and as such he is not entitled to get even a single rupee as compensation from railways. The complainant has cooked up a false case by indicting railways and there by claiming exorbitant amount as compensation for the efficient and relentless service provided to the public at large including the complainant of this type of complaint is entertained, tomorrow more and more passengers will come out with this type of concocted stories and will claim huge amount as compensation without any basis or legal backing. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 

                4.     The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 series were marked. No evidence was adduced for the opposite parties. Considering the evidence adduced by the complainant and hearing both sides the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite parties have preferred the present appeal.

                5.     Heard both sides. Perused the records.

                6.     The booking of the seats for the complainant and his son in the train for the journey from Kozhikkode to Kottayam is admitted by the opposite parties. It is stated by the complainant that even though he booked the seats from Kozhikkode he got seats only from Parappanagadi and the complainant and his son have to adjust the seat with two other passengers of the seats of three passengers. There was no railway officer to look into the matter. When the train reached the Kottayam he made compliant to TTE and other officials who were found in the AC compartment. They told him that it is not possible for them to go to each and every compartment to verify the reserved seats and the passengers have to adjust themselves. The said allegation is denied by the opposite parties. It is the case of the opposite parties that if the passenger who booked / reserved seat did not get the seat even after the departure of the train and even from the next railway station, normally a passenger who could not occupy his seat will meet the concerned TTE and will submit his grievance. In this case the complainant has not made any compliant to the TTE and he made the complaint only on reaching the destination, Kottayam. But because of that fact alone it cannot be found that the allegation of the complaint is false. As found by the district forum, in the case of reserved seats it is the duty of the opposite parties to check all the seats within a reasonable time to confirm whether reserved passengers occupied the seats or not and if he could not find out the reserved passenger in his seat or nearby it is his duty to visit again after a reasonable time. If he could not find out the passenger on his second visit also the TTE can note that fact in his diary and he can re-allot the seat to other passengers who are there in the waiting list. But in the version filed by the opposite parties it is not stated that the TTE has visited the place to ascertain whether the reserved passengers occupied their respective seats. Since the TTE has not visited the place, it is not possible for the complainant to make his compliant. It is not for the complainant to search and find out the TTE who may be in some other apartments or coaches, after leaving his son alone. There is nothing to disbelief the testimony given by PW1 regarding these aspects. The opposite parties have no case that the complainant has filed false compliant against them because of some particular reason. As found by the district forum it is the duty of the opposite parties to confirm whether all the reserved passengers are provided their allotted seats or not. The district forum found that not visiting the reserved seats individually by the officials of the opposite parties and not guaranteed the reserved seats to the passengers is a clear case of deficiency of service from the side of the opposite parties. The district forum found that the complainant failed to prove that due to the non availability of the reserved seat his back pain was aggravated and he had to take ayurvedic treatment. But the district forum found that if a passenger is not provided with reserved seat surely, it may cause much difficulty, pain, sufferings mental agony and physical health problems also. The district forum found that there was deficiency on the side of the opposite parties and they are liable to compensate  for the difficulties pain and suffering caused to the complainant. We consider that there is no reason / ground to interfere with the finding of the district forum.

 

                7.     The district forum directed the opposite parties to pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation and Rs 3000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we consider that the compensation and cost ordered by the district forum are on the higher side and those have to be reduced to Rs 5000/- and Rs 1500/- respectively. The order passed by the district forum is to be modified to that extent.

                          In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the district forum is modified as follows. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs 5000/- as compensation and Rs 1500/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

                         Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                         At the time of filing of the appeal the appellants have deposited Rs 6500/-. Respondent / complainant is permitted to obtain release of the said amount, on filing proper application, to be adjusted / credited towards the compensation and cost ordered as above.

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

BEENA KUMARI.A   : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 136/16

JUDGMENT DATED :12.06.2019