BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.366 OF 2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Between
1. Vinod Sanghi @ V.K.Sanghi
S/o late G.P.Sanghi age 73 years
Occ: Advocate R/o 501-A Major
Residency, Masab Tank, Hyderabad-28
2. Prem Sanghi S/o late Lalitha Prasad
Sanghi age 73 years, R/o 702-A,
Brindavan aparts, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad-04
Appellants/complainants
A N D
The General Manager,
South Central Railway
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad-03
Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant Sri Vinod Sanghi (PIP)
Counsel for the Respondents Sri J.T.Sastry
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The complainants are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the order dated 30.3.2009 in C.C.No.366 of 2008 by the District Forum-I, Hyderabad whereby their complaint was dismissed.
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainants are senior citizens who purchased journey cum reservation ticket on 13.3.2008 for travel on 26.4.2008 by train no.2723, AP Express and was issued ticket no.29881628 with waiting list no.18 and 19. On 9.4.2008 a ticket was purchased for Smt Surendrabala Sanghi to travel through the same train on 26.4.2008 to New Delhi was issued confirmed ticket No.29991516 in B3 coach. The case of the complainants are that issuing of confirmed ticket for a person applying much later after 26 days particularly when the ticket holders are senior citizens is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The railway rules provide lower berth for senior citizens when available but they were provided berths no.35 and 40 in coach B2 which were middle and side upper berths. Similarly the two return journey berths No.45 and 48, in Coach No.B2 booked on 13.3.2008 to travel on 29.4.2008 from New Delhi to Hyderabad by AP Express train No.2724 allotted to them were middle and side upper berths. The grievance of the complainants is that the tickets were issued discriminately which has caused pain and suffering to both the passengers who booked 45 days prior to the date of journey Lower Berth was allotted to other passengers who had applied later and it amounts to deficiency in service.
The opposite party resisted the case admitting that the complainants were allotted two berths bearing nos.35 and 40 in coach B-2 (AC-3tier) which were middle and side upper berths and contended that the senior citizens and women above the age of 45 years and pregnant women travelling alone were allotted a combined quota of two lower berths per coach in AC-3 tier and AC3 tier classes. Accordingly, Smt Surendrabala Sanghi aged 62 years traveling alone was allotted lower berth no.4 in B-3 AC-3 tier coach by the system even though she has purchased her ticket on 9.4.2008 i.e., 26 days afer the complainants purchased their ticket on 13.3.2008. The complainants were not given confirmed accommodation since they were not travelling alone and they booked for both of them a ticket on 13.3.2008 vide PNR NO.133-7323135. They were allotted waiting list nos.18 and 19 for their journey in AC-3 Tier by train no.2723 of 26.4.2008. The complainants were correctly allotted berth nos.34 and 40 in B-4 depending upon cancellations by the system. In the return journey berths were available in the general quota by T.No.2724 of 29.4.2008 on the day of purchasing ticket i.e., 13.3.2008 and the complainants were correctly allotted berth no.s45 and 48 in B-2 coach since lower berths were not available by the time. As per existing rules reservations are opened 90 days in advance and reserving 43 days in advance as in the present case that too during peak summer season is not enough to get the lower berths. Smt Surendrabala Sanghi was allotted lower berth in the earmarked quota at a later date since she was traveling alone. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant no.1 filed his affidavit and got marked exhibits A1 to A3. On behalf of the opposite party, Ms Chandrika Rao, Sr.Divl. Commercial Manager, Secunderabad filed affidavit and no exhibits were marked.
The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.20, 000 sought towards compensation?
The complainant and his wife, Mrs.Prem Singhi are aged 72 years at the time of filing of the complaint. The complainant along with his wife purchased a to and fro journey cum reservation ticket on 13th March, 2008 for the travel in AP Express from Hyderabad to New Delhi. The complainants contend that they requested for lower berths and to the effect they had made relevant entry in the requisition form. The names of the complainants were placed in the waiting list at serial number 18 and 19 and they were allotted middle and upper berths bearing number 35 and 40 in Coach B2 and for the return journey on 29th April, 2008 middle and upper berths bearing numbers 45 and 48 were allotted to the complainants in Coach Number B2 in Train number 2724 for their travel from New Delhi to Hyderabad. The opposite parties submit that the reservation is open 90 days prior to the date of journey and the complainants opted for reservation 43 days prior to their journey during peak summer season and as such it was not possible to allot them lower berths since the berths were allotted as per vacancies available at the time of preparing charts strictly following guidelines issued by the Railway Ministry. It was submitted that Mrs.Surendra Bala Sangi was allotted lower berth in the earmarked quota though she applied at a later date than the complainants since she was travelling alone.
The Director Traffic Commercial (G),Railway Board issued Circular Number 40 dated 18th April,2007. The first paragraph of the circular deals with the excerpt of the speech of the Hon’ble Minister of Railways and it reads as follows:
“Senior citizens and ladies face considerable inconvenience when they are allotted upper or middle berths. Therefore, I have decided that a quota of adequate lower berths will be provided in AC and Sleeper Classes for Senior Citizens and women above the age of 45, travelling alone”.
The governing factors to be considered as the basis for allotment of lower berth to the Senior Citizens and women above the age of 45 is that they should travel alone. It is true, the complainants were not traveling alone. However, if we go by the literal meaning of the word ‘alone’ in the speech of the Minister of Railways it becomes evident that the senior citizen should travel alone and it does not mean that the company of another senior citizens would also be treated as the senior citizen accompanied by another able bodied person. The complainant and his wife are admittedly senior citizens. The excerpt of the speech of the Minister of Railways relied upon by the opposite party would show that quota of adequate lower berths would be provided in AC and Sleeper Classes.
The complainants had not opted for reservation of the berths in 90 days stipulated period. It can be a factor for consideration for the difficulty that the opposite party face to allot lower berth to a senior citizen when a ticket-cum-reservation was opted 40 and odd days prior to the date of journey. It is also a fact not to be forgotten that in terms of the guidelines or circular adequate number of lower berths have to be provided for senior citizens and women above 45 years of age. Therefore, it is difficult to find fault with the opposite party for not providing lower berths to the complainants in AP Express on 26.4.2008 from Hyderabad to New Delhi. It is equally much easy to find deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in depriving the complainants or at least any of the complainants of the lower berth in AP Express while they were returning on 29.4.2008 which fact is strengthened by the admission of the opposite party that Smt Surendra Bala Sanghi a senior citizen was allotted lower berth only on the ground that she was traveling alone at the relevant time despite the fact that she had opted for reservation much later than the complainants did for their return journey.
It is pertinent to note that the opposite party failed to establish that adequate number of lower berths were provided to the senior citizens in AP Express from Hyderabad to New Delhi on 26.4.2008 and in the same express on 29.4.2008 from New Delhi to Hyderabad. The opposite party had rendered deficient service by depriving each of the complainant a lower berth in the AP Express while they were returning from New Delhi to Hyderabad. We are of the considered opinion that the complainants, on account of rendering deficient service by the opposite party are entitled to be compensated for their suffering, mental tension and discomfort. We are inclined to allow the appeal holding complainants entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,000/-.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The order dated 30.3.2009 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint is allowed. The opposite party directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainants. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.28.07.2010
KMK*
