Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/225/2018

THe Authorized Officer, The Claims Department, Southern Railway, Chennai Central Railway Department, Chennai-600 053 and another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Devadas S/o Mr. E. N. Padmanabhanm Xandu, Kolathur, Chennai-600 099. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. N.R. Narayanan

18 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

          BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH               PRESIDENT

                                   Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                   MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.225/2018

(Against order in CC.NO.71/2015 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)

 

      DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022    

 

 

1.       The Authorized Officer

The Claims Department

Southern Railway

Chennai Central Railways Department

Chennai – 600 003

 

2.       The Additional Divisional Railway Manager

(Public Grievances)                          M/s. Narayanan

Chennai Division, Southern Railway                        Counsel for

Chennai – 600 003                                   Appellant / Opposite parties

 

                                                         Vs.

 

Devadas

S/o.  E.N.Padmanabhan

XANDU, 1059, 10^th Street                                          M/s. Madhu Prakash

Poompuhar Nagar, Kolathur                                             Counsel for

Chennai – 600 099                                                Respondent / Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.21.7.2017 in CC.No.71/2015.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

                                                      ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellants/ opposite parties as against the order dt.21.7.2017 in CC.No.71/2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (North), in allowing the complaint.    

 

2.       For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per the rankings before the District Commission.

 

3.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:

           The complainant herein booked three tickets in Chennai Express bearing train No.16042, to travel from Allappey to Chennai in AC 2 tier on 12.4.2014, and the tickets were issued bearing PNR No.4261039350.  The complainant boarded the train as per the schedule with his luggage, and the train arrived on 13^th morning at Chennai.  When the complainant detrained with his entire luggage he found that his suitcase SAMSONITE 861 SIZE WORTH OF Rs.12600/- was cut opened in the bottom for almost 6 inches.  This damage had been caused due to rat bite in the train.  The said suitcase was in the guarantee period, but the replacement of the suitcase was based on damage caused during mishandling of the luggage in the transit and damage caused based on its quality.  But the complainant had lost his warranty and guarantee, because of the damages caused by the rat bite in the train.  Such a worthy suitcase got damaged only because of the non-maintenance of the compartments.  The complainant immediately approached the Station Master in the Chennai Station and complained.  But the Station Maser advised him to give a complaint alongwith the photo of the suitcase.  Accordingly, the complaint was sent on 14.4.2014 alongwith all documents as instructed.  But no step was taken by the 1^st opposite party for more than 6 months.  The complainant sent e-mail to the 2^nd opposite party on 29.10.2014 and the 2^nd opposite party replied on 10.12.2014, admitting that there was rat in the train compartment.  But there was no remedy for the complainant in the above said complaint.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed this complaint. 

 

4.       The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties, by filing their version as follows:

          According to the complainant he had booked train tickets for three members in 2-tier A/c compartment of train No.16042, Alleppey Express for travelling from Alleppey to Chennai Central.  The entire complaint is based on the complainant’s assumption that the damage for the suitcase was caused due to rat bite in the train, which is not correct.  The said assumption is totally wrong, and the complainant also overlooked the possibility of the suitcase getting damaged due to other causes like handling, manufacturing defects etc., Without ascertaining the correct facts, the complainant straight away jumped to the reason that the rate bite caused to the suitcase is the cause for the damage of the suitcase.  The train in which the complainant travelled is completely checked at the Basin Bridge Depot for any maintenance complaint.  The train is operated in a link and in the first half of the cycle, it is run as Train No.12695/12696, Chennai Central- Trivandrum Express and in the second half, it is run as Train No.16041/16042, Chennai Central-Alleppey Express.  Thus prior to its departure on 11.4.2014 from Chennai Central, the rake had undergone primary maintenance at the said depot, which included placing of glue pads and cages in all the coaches for trapping rats.  No rat was trapped in the train on 11.4.2014 thereby indicating that all the coaches including the two tier AC coach in which the complainant travelled were free of any rat menace.  By the reply given by the Railway administration on 10.12.2014 there was no admission of any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  In fact the administration of the opposite party had taken the complaint seriously and alerted the Depot Supervisor to monitor the rat trapping work.  Being a Public Grievances Cell, dealing with complaints lodged by passengers in a fit of anger or anguish, it is a common practice for all organizations engaged in public service to give a courteous reply, expressing regret for the inconvenience that might have been caused inadvertently and the said expression of regret does not by any stretch of imagination indicate deficiency in service resulting in liability on the part of Railways.  On receipt of the legal notice dt.18.3.2015, the Railway Administration had taken steps to send reply, in the meantime the opposite party received notice for this consumer complaint.  As per Sec.100 of the Railway Act, 1989, the Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant had booked the luggage and had given receipt thereof.  In a similar case in SLP (C) Nos.34738 & 34739 of 2012, the Apex Court had held under order dt.2.7.2013 that Railways cannot be held responsible for the goods which are not booked.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.       In order to prove their respective cases proof affidavits were filed alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A10 on the side of the complainant.  There were no documents filed on the side of the opposite parties. 

 

6.       After analysing the evidence, the District Commission has allowed the complaint by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Railways, and thus directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,350/- towards the cost of the suitcase and also to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation, besides cost of Rs.5000/-.  Aggrieved over the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

 

7.       Keeping the submissions in mind, we have carefully perused the materials available on record. 

 

8.       The main submissions of the appellant is that the District Commission, by relying upon the portion of the reply sent by the Railway as “the supervisor in charge of pest control has been advised to monitor the coach to control rat menace and inconvenience caused is deeply regretted”, had erroneously come to the conclusion that there was rat menace in the train.  In the said reply the opposite party had not admitted any deficiency of service.  After verifying the complaint from the records, the Railway Administration had clarified to the respondent that cages and glue pads are kept in the coaches during maintenance check and considering the complaint, the Railway Administration had taken the same seriously and alerted the Depot Supervisor to monitor the rat trapping work thoroughly.  The train in which the complainant travelled is completely checked at the Basin Bridge Depot.  No other passenger had made any complaint regarding presence of rats in the coach in which the complainant had travelled.  The complainant had also not submitted any evidence to show that the suitcase was damaged due to rat bite. 

          The learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties had also drawn the attention of this commission to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dt.2.7.2013 in a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 34738 and 34739/2012, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that

“The petitioner Shri. Vijay Kumar Jain made strenuous efforts to convince us that the three consumer forums committed serious error by not entertaining his claim for compensation.  He also attacked the order of the National Commission on several grounds, but we have not felt impressed.  As per the petitioner’s own case, he had been allotted berth No.41 in Sleeper coach S2 and he had voluntarily placed attaché case on berth No.43.  Therefore the Railway cannot be held responsible for the alleged loss of attaché case by way of theft or otherwise and we do not find any valid ground to entertain his challenge to the orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission and the National commission.  The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed”. 

 

           The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party would further submit that the damage would have been caused somewhere else, and not in the train, because the Railway administration had taken every steps to prevent the rat menace. 

 

9.       Having considered bothside submissions, we are of the opinion that it is unnecessary for any passenger to complaint about damage, and claim compensation from the opposite parties.  Moreover, though the opposite parties had averred before the District Commission that every steps were taken by them to curtail the rat menace, they have not produced any evidence to show that   steps were taken in the train, on the date of the travel of the complainant.  Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the direction of the District Commission for refund of the cost of the suitcase.

          However, we feel that a sum of Rs.10000/- awarded by the District Commission towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost seems to be on the higher side, and hence the same is hereby reduced to Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost respectively, which would meet the ends of justice.  The appeal is allowed in part accordingly.

 

10.     In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by modifying the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North) in CC.No.71/2015 dt.21.7.2017, by reducing the compensation to Rs.5000/- instead of Rs.10000/- and reducing the cost awarded to Rs.2000/- instead of Rs.5000/-.   The rest of the direction is hereby confirmed.  There is no order as to cost in the appeal.

         

 

 

 

 

  R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                          R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT