Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

51/2012

Dr.B.Cheran, - Complainant(s)

Versus

mr. A.G.Suresh kumar, - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

21 May 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  27.02.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.05.2018

 

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

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

MONDAY  THE 21^st   DAY OF MAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.51/2012

 

 

1.Dr.B.Cheran(Aged about 56 years),

S/o.Dr.C.Balasubramanian,

No.14, Jeyammal Street,

Ayyavoo Colony,

Aminijikarai,

Chennai – 600 029.

 

2.Mrs.Gomathi Lakshmi Cheran(Aged about 48 years),

W/o.Dr.B.Cheran,

No.14, Jeyammal Street,

Ayyavoo Colony,

Aminjikarai,

Chennai – 600 029.

                                                                                    ….. Complainants

 

..Vs..

1.Mr.A.G.Suresh Kumar,

Head Ticket Examiner,

Southern Railway,

Madras Division,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

 

 

2.Mrs. Agnes Mary,

Reservation Supervisor II,

Madras Division,

Southern Railway,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

3. General Manager,

Southern Railway,

Park Town,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 20.03.2012

Counsel for Complainants                    : Mr.M.Nagarethinam

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : Mr.K.Kumaran

 

O R D E R

 

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

This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to direct the railway authorities not to allot extra person in the first class compartment and to direct the ticket examiners to ensure comfortable travel of passengers and to take action on the erring staff and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant and also to direct the 3^rd opposite party to pay the difference between second class sleeper and first class fair and litigation charges u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

 

 

1.THE COMPLAINANTS IN BRIEF:

          The complainants booked first class Non-AC ticket through online on 25.11.2011 for himself and his wife/2^nd complainant to travel from Chennai Central to Mangalore on 09.12.2011 by West Coast Express Train No.16627. The tickets status was confirmed. The total ticket charges for the complainants was about Rs.1,998/-. The seat number for the passengers would be known only at the time of travelling. They were allotted ‘C’ coupe which has one lower berth, one upper berth. However a third person lady was allotted in the same coupe to travel from Chennai Central to Coimbatore.  The train leaves at 7.30 a.m at Chennai and reaches Coimbatore at 7.55 p.m.

          2. The ticket examiner was very casual in his duty. He did not close the door way from non Air conditioned coach. He never closed the doors of the first class compartment. There was free flow of passengers who did not possess valid first class tickets into the first class compartment. Thus the passengers of first class suffered hardship and misery, the complainants pointed out to the ticket examiner that few coupes were over allotted and few coupes were under allotted and requested him to do the correct distribution, he replied that he could not do that because railway employees with railway passes have occupied the vacant seats in the less allotted coupes. When the complainants went into the details, he came to know that those railway employees with railway passes were eligible only for non AC compartments, but they usually travel only in Air Conditioned compartments and first class.

          3. Normally the first class is preferred by elderly persons. They do not prefer Air Conditioned compartments. They need comfortable space to sit and to travel. The difference between the first class and second sleeper is only the privacy and space. Second sleeper seat accommodates three persons where as first class seat is meant to accommodate only two persons. There is no other difference between the two classes while the fare for first class between Chennai and Mangalore is Rs.999/- and the fare for Second class sleeper is Rs.347/-. More than the space, the passenger prefers first class because in each seat, there are only two persons and they can travel lying down one person in lower and another person in upper birth. The Railway authorities have no authority to allot a third person in the first class seat meant for two persons. They have exceeded their authority and had rendered deficient service.

          4. The complainants were proceeding to Sringeri on a pilgrimage travel but he was disturbed so much that he could not peacefully worship God. His physical discomfort and mental agony was enormous as his mission for solutions to the problems were unheard by the railway authorities. Likewise all the genuine Consumers who were travelling in the first class on that day raised hue and cry but no one cared for that, the railway authorities are liable to compensate the Complainants and bound to take action on the erring official who had prepared the reservation chart and the erring ticket examiner who was lethargic in his approach and was failing in his duty.

5. Hence the complainants filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to direct the railway authorities not to allot extra person in the first class compartment and to direct the ticket examiners to ensure comfortable travel of passengers and to take action on the erring staff and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainants and also to direct the 3^rd opposite party to pay the difference between second class slipper and first class fair and litigation charges. 

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Complainants had purchased a first class ticket through online booking on 25.01.2011 for his travel from Chennai Central to Mangalore in Train No.16627/West Coast Express on 09.12.2012. The Complainants boarded the train on 09.12.2012 and he was allotted ‘C’ coupe in the said train and after enjoying the comforts of the travel, he had come forward with this frivolous allegation that another passenger was accommodated in said C coupe illegally and unauthorized passengers were accommodated.

7. The First Opposite party states that the complainants was accommodated in First Class ‘C’ coupe, which was composed of two berths. The passenger who travelled along with the complainants was holding a valid reserved ticket like that of the complainants. Inspite of this fact, the complainants has come forward with baseless and meaningless allegation. Further, if a passenger desires to travel in a coupe, he must give request to this effect by mentioning the same in the requisition form. The complainants cannot presume that coupe is meant for exclusive accommodation of two passengers only. In the first class coupe, accommodation is given for three passengers during day time and from 2100 hours to 0600 hours only accommodation is restricted to two passengers.

8. The coach doors are locked and unauthorized persons are not allowed to enter reserved coaches. Hence the allegation made by the complainants is utterly false. Further, the allegation against the railway employees is utterly false and is defamatory in nature. The reservation chart is prepared by computerized system and there can be no fault. Hence the allegation that the opposite parties have committed an error is utterly false. Further, the Railways are a public utility service run without any profit motive. It is the endeavor of the opposite parties to provide a safe and comfortable travel to the public and also to provide the best of the services. The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

9. 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?

10. POINT NO :1        

          It is an admitted fact that the complainants and his wife booked first class coupe Non-AC E-ticket on 25.11.2011  in Ex.A1 to travel on 09.12.2011 from Chennai central to Mangalore in Train No.16627/West Coast Express  on payment of charges of Rs.1,988/- and the tickets were confirmed and on the date of journey when they entered the coach, they found that an another lady passenger was allotted in the same coupe and however there were only two beds i.e one lower and one upper birth were allotted in that coupe.

          11. The complainants would argued that the said coupe had only two berths and hence only two passengers can be allotted and where as the third passengers was allotted to travel from Chennai to Coimbatore  is unjust and the complainants      booked separate coupe for himself and his wife and by allotting another passenger in the same coupe is deficiency and they cannot utilize the bed till Coimbatore  and thereby committed deficiency to them and further unauthorized passengers were also entered in that train and caused mental agony to them and even after brought to the notice of the TTE he did not care or taken any steps to evict the unauthorized passengers and the complainants and his wife having paid such huge amount for their separate coupe and they could not enjoy their privacy and therefore the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service.

             

          12. The counsel for the opposite parties relied upon Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No.26 chapter III which deals with reservation of berth and reserved accommodation. The opposite parties relied on rule 301 is extracted as follows:

        301. Reservation on berths or seats- (1) When berths are reserved for passengers the intention is to provide sleeping accommodation between the hours 9 p.m to 6 a.m. It must be distinctly understood that during the day time. Viz., from 6.a.m to 9.am the passengers concerned must, if required, made room for other passengers in the compartment up to the number it is marked to carry.

        (2) Seats or berths in Air-conditioned First Class, A.C. 2-tier Sleeper, First Class, A.C.3tier, A.C.Chair Car, Sleeper Class and Second Class compartments can be reserved on application on such trains and from such stations as notified by the Railways.

13.The opposite parties counsel argued that the berth are reserved for passengers to provide sleeping accommodation from 9.00 p.m to 6.am, however, during the day time from 6.00 a.m to 9.00 p.m the passengers who had reserved the berth has to accommodate other passengers in the berth in which he has booked.  According to the counsel for opposite parties the birth will be converted during the day time as seats. The said rule supports the contention of the opposite parties. The complainants countered that he had paid the fare for birth during the entire journey and even when the berth was converted into seats during the day time no specific charges was deducted from his payment towards birth. The said anomaly in the tariff when the birth was converted to seats was not met out by the opposite parties and hence we hold by allowing other passengers to travel in the day time in the birth meant for the complainants is deficiency in service. Furthermore, the complainants booked the ticket in the coupe and the rule 301 does not apply to the person travelling in the coupe, as the class coupe is not mentioned in rule 301(2) and hence the contention of the opposite parties is rejected.

14. The complainants alleged that unauthorized person were entered in the coach and caused disturbance to their journey and even after informing to the TTE, he did not care for them. The complainants is a practicing advocate he would aware about the TTE maintaining a complaint book. In the complaint book, the complainants has not registered any complaint about the unauthorized person entry. Apart from that no other acceptable evidence adduced about the unauthorized persons entry. Therefore, in this respect we hold that that the complaint has not proved the entry of the unauthorized person in the coach.     In view of the forgoing discussions, it is held that the opposite parties allotted a third person to travel in the two bed coupe proved that the opposite parties 1 to 3 committed deficiency in service to the complainants.

15. POINT NO:2

          Normally for the first class coupe the opposite parties charges more than the other class passengers. Further the rule 301 relied on, does not include the coupe class. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties not to allot extra persons in the first class coupe compartment over and above the berths (beds) available.  Due to allotting a third passenger to travel in a two berth coupe the complainants suffered with mental agony and discomfort is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the same, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the other reliefs is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The 3^rd opposite party is directed not to allot extra persons in future in the first class coupe compartments over and above the berths (beds) available even during day time and further the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The complaint in respect of the other relief is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st day of May 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 09.12.2011                   Confirmed Train Ticket  for Journey

Ex.A2 dated 11.01.2012                   Demand Letter for Rs.2,000/- from Southern

                                                    Railway for furnishing information under

                                                    RTIAct

 

Ex.A3 dated 20.01.2012                   Copy of covering letter and DD for Rs.2,000/-

Ex.A4 dated 27.01.2012                   Copy of Acknowledgement of Rs.2,000/- and

                                                    information Under RTI Act from Southern

                                                    Railway

 

Ex.A5 dated 09.12.2011                   Reservation Chart for first class compartment

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Copy of the Reservation Chart

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Copy of the charting procedure for reservation

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT