Kerala

StateCommission

A/12/745

DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.PRABHAKARAN - Opp.Party(s)

S.RENGANATHAN

21 Nov 2014

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.745/2012

JUDGMENT DATED 21/11/2014

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.569/2010 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam dated, 30/04/2012)

 

PRESENT:

 

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

APPELLANT:

 

The Divisional Commercial Manager,

Southern Railway, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

(By Adv:   S. Renganathan)                   

 

                   Vs

 

RESPONDENT:

 

          K. Prabhakaran, S/o. Krishnan, Mullassery House,

KSRA-74, Kairali Street, Kaloor, Kochi-17.

         

(By Advs:  M/s. KNB Nair Associates)                    

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

        Aggrieved by the order passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C.No.569/10 the opposite parties came up in appeal. 

2.  The brief facts of the case are that the complainant booked 16 tickets for himself, family members and relatives for their travel from Ernakulam to Kundapura by Netravati Express on 06/11/2009 and also booked 16 return tickets from Udupi to Ernakulam junction for 9/11/2009 by Mangala Express (Train No.2618) in Sleeper Class.  All the tickets were confirmed reservation tickets with berth accommodation.  On 09/11/2009 at 11 PM it came to their knowledge that their names were not in the reservation chart.  Immediately the complainant contacted the Station Master and showed the original tickets.  The Station Master expressed his inability to do anything and no alternative arrangement made for the comfortable journey of the complainant and his group.  They were not allowed to enter into the reservation compartment and had to travel in the unreserved general compartments.  All the persons were uncomfortable by standing and sitting on the floor carrying the 3 year old child through out.  The complainant had to suffer physical and mental agony due to the irresponsible act of the opposite parties.  The complaint is filed for Rs.2 Lakhs as compensation for the deficiency in service and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of proceedings from opposite parties. 

3.  In the written version filed by the opposite parties it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer and is not entitled for the compensation.  When a confirmed reservation is made in the Passenger Reservation System, which is computerized, the system automatically shows the names of the passengers who had been allotted with confirmed berths against the berth number.  Berths as shown on the tickets had been kept reserved for the complainant and the party.  It is also contended that the ticket examiners who worked in the train at the time of its travel at Udupi do not come under the jurisdiction of Southern Railway and they are under the Konkan Railway Corporation.  The complainant and his party had travelled by Train No.2618 Mangala Express in general coach, as admitted by the complainant without taking any extra ticket.  Hence opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant for his own negligence.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the employees of the opposite party.  The complaint is filed to gain undue monetary benefit and the complaint is only to be dismissed.

        4.  In view of the version filed by the opposite parties the complainant impleaded Konkan Railway Corporation in the party array as additional opposite party.  It is stated in the version filed by 3^rd opposite party that the 3^rd opposite party is not a necessary party as the complainant neither booked the tickets from Konkan Railway Corporation nor the railway has any control over the reservation data of the Mangala Lakshadeep Express (No.2618) in which the complainant sought his reservation for travel from Udupi to Ernakulam.  The 3^rd opposite party has very little role in ticket reservation of the complainant as the Railway can accommodate only those passengers whose names appear in the reservation chart.  If the names appear in the reservation chart the opposite party can accommodate them in reserved compartment, whereas their names were not in the chart boarding at Udupi in the disputed train.  The correctness of the reservation and the details of reservation forms were tendered by the reservation staff and it can be explained by the Southern Railway only as the Ernakulam reservation office from where reservation tickets were booked which falls under the administrative control of Southern Railway.  The system has access to the data base only for storing the tickets once printed and accordingly the reservation charts are prepared at Udupi only (the list of passengers boarding at Udupi by the said train). It is also stated as per rule these charts are preserved for a period of six months only.  The 3^rd opposite party was made a party in 2011 only while the complainant booked the ticket for 9/11/2009.  It is also contended that the persons whose names are not shown in the reservation chart are not allowed to travel in the reservation compartment.  The complainant himself stated that his name was not in the reservation chart on9/11/2009.  Specifically the complainant and his party were 16 in numbers and the train reaches by mid-night and the 3^rd opposite party is not responsible for any in-convenience caused to the passengers for not accommodating them in the reservation compartment due to unavailability of berth in the reserved compartment on that particular day.  The 4^th opposite party was served with the notice.

        5.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents were marked as Exbts. A1 to A4.  Neither oral nor documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties.

6.  The counsel for the appellant argued that the Forum Below allowed the compensation without properly considering the facts. The counsel argued that the Station Master at Udupi is not under the jurisdiction of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  It is submitted by the counsel that the complainant purchased the tickets on 4/10/2009 from Ernakulam for the return journey from Udupi to Ernakulam in sleeper class.  It is stated that all the tickets were confirmed and it is specifically printed in the ticket that the “new time table from 01/11/2009 Mangala Express Boarding Udupi on 9/11/2009”.  It is also argued that the timing of the Mangala Express has changed was not taken into notice by the complainant. It is the sheer negligence of the complainant that they have not followed the computer generated instruction to follow the time table as shown in the ticket.  The boarding time from Udupi has changed from 1/11/2009 as such the time was not printed in the ticket.  It is the prime duty of a passenger to confirm the train arrival/departure on the date of travelling itself.  In the instant case, the complainant had not followed the specific instructions given in the ticket which caused the misery of accommodation in the train.  The counsel also pointed out that in the deposition the complainant it is stated that he along with the other 15 passengers travelled in the general compartment from Udupi to Ernakulam without purchasing new ticket.  If the name of the passengers are not shown in the reservation chart it is clear that passengers are not permitted to enter the reservation coach.  While so, the complainant who was fully aware of the fact that the names were not in the list the complainant ought to have taken ordinary tickets to travel in the train.  The  ticketless travel in a railway compartment entitles the appellants to charge penalty to all the passengers which was not happened in this case as no ticket examiner entered into that compartment.  Even after travelling in the train without tickets with 15 passengers the Forum Below allowed compensation to the complainant which is illegal and it is to be set-aside.  Further the complaint is filed by the complainant and he is not entitled for claiming compensation for the accompanied persons as he is not authorized by any of the accompanied passengers. The complainant also has not sought for permission to file the complaint in representative nature.  The Forum Below allowed exorbitant amount to the complainant and the order is only to set-aside.

        7.  The respondent’s counsel submitted that the complainant is a senior citizen and he travelled from Ernakulam to Kundapura and return journey on 9/11/2009 by Mangala Express from Udupi to Ernakulam. He purchased the confirmed reservation tickets in sleeper class for all the 15 members and on the date of journey ie. on 9/11/2009 when they reached by 11 PM at Udupi the names of the complainant and accompanied persons were not in the reservation chart.  As he could not get any satisfactory reply from the Station Master of Udupi all of them were compelled to travel in the general compartment by standing and on sitting in the floor with small child.  Even though the complainant approached the Railway Authorities they turned down the request of the complainant which resulted in the filing of the complaint before the Forum Below.  The complainant and his party already paid the sleeper reservation ticket charges as early as on 4/10/2009 and he was issued with a confirmed reserved ticket and as the names were not in the reservation chart that too at mid-night they were forced to travel in the general compartment and travelled with difficulty from Udupi to Ernakulam.  In the version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties it is stated that they are not responsible for not having the names in the reservation chart as the Mangala Express comes under the Konkan Railway Corporation.  The complainant had to implead the Konkan Corporation and in the version it is contended that the charts are prepared at Delhi and the liability cannot be fastened upon the 3^rd opposite party.  More over, the payments are made through Southern Railway and ignored the request of the respondent.    It is also argued that the reservation charts are kept for six months and the request of the respondent was not tendered satisfactorily.  The respondent along with his family members travelled on a pilgrimage and the complainant is a senior citizen and the team included 3 year old child.  All these passengers had to suffer difficulty and mental agony and the complaint is to be allowed in toto.

8.  Heard in detail and have gone through the records.  It is evident from document Exbt: A1 series that the complainant purchased confirmed reservation tickets for the journey for himself and his fellow passengers for their return journey from Udupi to Ernakulam junction on 09/11/2009.  The allegation of the complainant that their names were not shown in the reservation chart on 09-11-2009.  On enquiry with Udupi Station Master, it is informed that they could not travel in the reservation compartment. The boarding time at Udupi was by 11.00 pm and the boarding time is only 2 minutes. The complainant and his party were compelled to travel in the general compartment by standing and by sitting on the floor with 3 year old child and aged persons.  It is clear from the evidence of PW1 that he had not produced any authorization or any document entrusting the complainant to file the complaint.  It is also clear from evidence that he had not given any complaint in the complaint book at the Udupi Station.  On enquiry with TTR it was informed that the booked seats were occupied and he could not accommodate any of them in the reservation compartment.  It is admitted that the complainant and the 15 fellow passengers travelled in the general compartment without taking any ticket from Udupi to Ernakulam.  He was also not in a position to produce any documents to show that he travelled in the general compartment itself.  The arguments putforth by the appellant is that the complainant and fellow passengers who travelled without tickets are punishable.  In this case no penalty was charged from the complainant and his fellow passengers.  Nothing is coming out from the documents or from the complaint whether the complainant enquired about the new train timings from 1/11/2009 as mentioned in Exbt. A1 series.  At this stage, the assertion of the appellants that there had change in the train timings from 1/11/2009 which was specifically printed in the tickets itself and the burden of verifying the train timings lies on the part of the complainant.  No where it is stated by the complainant that he had enquired the latest timings from 01/11/2009 of the Mangala Lakshadeep Express of the particular train on the disputed date of travel nor the reservation chart prepared by the appellants.  It is stated in the version that they are not in a position to produce the reservation chart as they were not keeping the reservation chart not more than six months.  The complaint is filed in 2010 and the appellants were not in a position to produce the reservation documents.  Matter being so, at this stage we find that the complainant purchased the ticket is evident from records.  It is to be presumed that the complainant on that day traveled is to be taken for granted and the admission of the complainant that he travelled due to the compelling situation in general compartment with much difficulty that too a ticket less journey.  It is the duty of the complainant to verify train timings on the date of journey.  Being a ticketless journey from Udupi to Ernakulam by 15 passengers is an admitted case that too knowing that the names were not in the reservation chart, we find no ground to award compensation to the complainant.

        In the result, appeal is allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

 

A. RADHA          :         MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

 

sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.745/2012

JUDGMENT DATED 21/11/2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sa.