Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/205/2015

Saravanan, Station Master, Salem Junction & 3 Ors. - Complainant(s)

Versus

N. Radhakrishna & 3 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

N.R. Narayanen & Asso.,

20 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL            :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 205 of 2015

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.23 of 2012 dated 21.04.2014 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Salem.

 

Wednesday, the 20^th day of April 2022

 

1. Saravanan

    Station Master

    Salem Junction

    Salem – 5.

 

2.  T. Raveendran

     SRM/ SA

     Salem Junction

     Salem – 5.

 

3.  The Travelling Ticket Examiner

     [On Duty in Train No.17229

                 On 16.01.2011]

     C/o. Station Master   

     Salem Junction

     Salem – 5.

 

4.  The Divisional Manager

     Salem Railway Station

     Salem – 5.                                                                                                                        .. Appellants/ Opposite Parties

 

 

- Vs –

1.  N.Radhakrishna

2.  M.Aruna

3.  Prasad Rao

4.  Vijaya

     All are residing at

     C/o. S.D. Manivasagam

     Opp. To Mariamman Temple  

     Alagapuram Periya Pudur

     Salem – 16.                                                                                                            .. Respondents/ Complainants

 

   

    Counsel for Appellants / Opposite Parties   : M/s.N.R. Narayanan       

    Counsel for the Respondents/Complainants:  M/s. J.Ramakrishnan

                                               

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 20.04.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT [Open Court]

1.     This appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem, in C.C. No.23 of 2012, allowing the complaint filed by the respondents/ complainants herein, in part. 

 

2.  The respondents are the complainants and the appellants are the opposite parties.  For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking in the District Forum, Salem. 

 

3.   The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows: The 1^st and 2^nd complainants are husband and wife, 3^rd and 4^th complainants are parents of the 1^st complainant.  The complainants along with their 9 months old child, reserved ticket to travel in Train No.17229 Sabari Express from Salem junction to Hyderabad on 15.01.2011 and obtained journey cum reservation ticket under PNR No.4125181715.  The scheduled arrival time of the train at Salem Junction is 19.30 hours.  The train did not arrive at the scheduled time.  Whileso, an announcement was made that the train is expected to arrive on Platform No.1 at 19.50 hours.  But, without any announcement the train arrived at 20.20 hours.  When the complainants and other passengers, who were holding reserved tickets, tried to board the train, they could not even enter the compartment since it was fully occupied by some unauthorised passengers.  No Travelling Ticket Examiner was available.  Hence, the complainant requested the police standing on the platform to help them but the police refused to help the complainant stating that only if the Travelling Ticket Examiner or Station Master inform him, he could help them to enter into the compartment.  Since the train was about to leave the station, one of his relatives went and brought the 1^st opposite party Station Master, who was on duty at that time.  The 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the crowd in the compartment is due to Sabarimalai Pilgrimage and further in a lethargic manner he asked the complainant to board the train if it is possible for them or to cancel the ticket.  The 1^st opposite party, instead of helping the complainants and others to board the train, allowed the train to leave the platform.  The complainants and the co-passengers, along with their luggage, were left stranded in the platform. Thus, the 1^st opposite party not only committed dereliction of duty but also deficiency in service.  After the train left the platform, since the duty time of the 1^st opposite party was over, he was relieved from the station duty by the 2^nd opposite party.  Mr. Raveendran SRM/SA, the 2^nd opposite party who took charge from the 1^st opposite party, informed the complainants that he is facing the same problem for the past 33 years and stated that the complainant should not have booked the ticket during Sabarimala yatra season. Since no alternate arrangements were made, the complainant and others gave a written complaint and obtained acknowledgement from the 2^nd opposite party.  The complaint was also registered in the Complaint Book Serial No.399231 dated 15.01.2011.  Since the complainant and his wife the 2^nd complainant, had to join their duties on 17.01.2011 at Hyderabad, he searched for an alternate arrangement to reach the destination and arranged by ‘Air’, with great struggle.  Thus, the complainants incurred unwarranted expenses due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The total financial loss was Rs.20,264/-.  The break up details are as follows :-

a)  Ticket fare                                            .. Rs. 1680.00

b)  Air Travel Ticket on 16.01.2011             .. Rs.15724.00

c)  Conveyance from home to station 

        and return to home                            .. Rs.    500.00

 

d)  Conveyance to Coimbatore Airport

        from Salem                                       .. Rs.  2360.00

 

On 08.02.2011, the complainant issued a legal notice, which was received by the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4.  The 4^th opposite party sent a reply notice dated 02.03.2011, stating as follows :-

“  The Railways have introduced an Automatic up gradation scheme under which vacancies in an upper class are filled up by up grading the eligible full fare paying passengers having confirmed berths in the next lower class who are enabled to  travel in the higher class up to the number of vacancies without any additional payment.  For that purpose, a column ‘Do you want to be up graded?’ write ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ in the box has been introduced in the application form and it is made clear that if this option is not exercised there will be automatic up gradation of the passengers.  Since in this case the column had been left unfilled the automatic up gradation clause came into play and your clients were up graded to AC-3 tier.  In such cases the name(s) of the passenger(s) will not appear in the chart prepared against the Berth originally booked but will be separately shown as included in the up graded Class/ Bogiee/ Berth and foot-note will appear in the chart indicating that the concerned passenger(s) to verify the chart before entering or waiting to enter the Booked Bogiee.  Your clients obviously failed to verify the chart and did not go to the up graded class in which the 4 Berths went unutilised and a note N.T (not travelled) was entered in the upper class chart. Your clients thus lost the benefit of upper class travels.  Unfortunately no refund is also possible, since they did not apply for refund within prescribed time.” 

 

The contention of the complainant is that the reply is only an afterthought, in order to avoid payment of damages and compensation claimed by the complainant.  Hence, he has come forward with the present complaint claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

 

4.     The said complaint was resisted by the 4^th opposite party filing a written version, which was adopted by the opposite parties 1, 2 & 3.  The ticket bearing PNR No.4125181715 alleged to be booked by the complainant is a Tatkal ticket, through travel agents and the reservation application form has been given by one Advocate Mr. S.D. Manivasagam, who is the counsel for the complainant in the present complaint.  On perusal of the application form it is observed that no name as ‘Radhakrishna’, (1^st complainant) is found at all and no reservation has been sought for such a name.  Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer.  This fact has also been clearly stated in the reply notice dated 02.03.2011 sent by the 4^th opposite party.  Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable.  The petitioner should be aware that the Railway has introduced an automatic up gradation scheme under which vacancies in upper classes are filled up by upgrading the eligible full fare paying passengers having confirmed berths in the next lower class, who are enabled to travel in the higher class up to the number of vacancies available, without any additional payment.  On perusal of the chart affixed on the compartment, it could be seen clearly that the passengers booked under ticket bearing PNR No.4125181715 has been upgraded.  Hence, it is the duty of the passengers to check the chart before entering the booked compartment.  The complainant had obviously failed to verify the chart and did not go to the upgraded class namely AC 3 Tier, in which 4 berths allotted to them went unutilized and a Not Joined (NIJ) was entered in the upper class chart.  The passengers booked under ticket bearing PNR No.4125181715 thus lost the benefit of upper class travel, which was provided to them at no extra cost.  Hence, the sufferings said to have been undergone by the complainant is of his own, due to his ignorance of the up gradation rules and regulations in booking of reservation tickets, which are clearly notified through the Railway Public time table and reservation application forms.  Hence, absolutely there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit 11 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A11.  On the side of the opposite parties, along with the proof affidavit of 4^th opposite party, 11 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.B1 to B11.

 

6.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence and records, has come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and hence directed them to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants as compensation.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties.

 

7.   Heard the submissions made by the counsel for both parties and have carefully gone through the entire material available on records.

 

8.  It is the main submission of the counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties that the name of the 1^st complainant is N. Radhakrishna.  But in the reservation form this name was not found.  Only the name Ramakrishna is entered in the reservation form.  Hence, on this ground itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  In this case the complainants should have verified the reservation chart of their coach against their berth numbers 5, 6, 7 and 15.  Then they would have found an $ symbol and an explanation given below the chart as “the $ symbol next to berth number indicates original passenger in the berth has been upgraded” and if they had verified the upgraded coach AC 3 Tier, they would have found their names and PNR Number against their upgraded berth Nos.35, 36, 39 and 40.  Instead of following the proper process and verification of the chart, the complainant had approached the wrong persons such as Railway Police and Station Master and missed the train due to 8 their own negligence and not due to the negligence of the opposite parties.  But without considering these aspects, the District Forum has allowed the complaint. 

 

9.  Countering the same, counsel for the respondents/ complainants would submit that the appellants/ opposite parties cannot deny that the 1^st respondent/ 1^st complainant is a consumer because it has been mistakenly typed in the application form as ‘Ramakrishna’ instead of ‘Radhakrishna’.   In fact, the 1^st respondent/ 1^st complainant had registered a complaint as ‘Radhakrishna’, which is marked as Ex.A2.  Subsequently, the 1^st respondent/ 1^st complainant registered his name ‘Radhakrishna’ in the Station Complaint Book under Serial No.399231 dated 15.01.2011.  Therefore, taking advantage of the mistake in typing the name in the reservation form, the opposite party cannot say that the 1^st respondent/ 1^st complainant is not a consumer.  With regard to the other submission of the opposite parties that the tickets were upgraded to AC 3 Tier and the respondent/ complainant and his family did not avail the same and hence those 4 berths allotted to them were unutilized, it is submitted by the counsel for Respondents/ Complainants that absolutely there is no documentary evidence to show that the complainants’ tickets were upgraded to AC 3 Tier and that the same was brought to the knowledge of the complainant.  Hence, the complainants sought for dismissal of the appeal.

 

10.   The submission of the counsel for the appellants was mainly on two grounds.  One, in the reservation form, the name of the complainant does not appear and therefore he is not a consumer.  Secondly, the complainants’ tickets booked under PNR No.4125181715 were upgraded.  Hence, it is the duty of the passengers to verify the chart before entering or waiting to enter the booked compartment.  The complainants failed to verify the chart and did not go to the upgraded coach, viz., AC 3 Tier, in which the 4 berths allotted to them was unutilized and the phrase ‘Not Joined’ was entered in the upper class chart.  Thus, the complainants lost the benefit of upper class travel which was provided to them at no extra cost.  With regard to the first ground, we find that though in the application form the name was entered as Ramakrishna instead of Radhakrishna, the names of other family members were correctly mentioned.  Therefore, it is clear that only a typographical error has crept in the application form.  As contended by the counsel for the complainants, by taking advantage of the mistake crept in the reservation application form, the opposite parties are projecting a case as if the complainant is not a consumer, which cannot be accepted.  In fact the District Forum has rejected this defence by a well founded reasoning.  The next ground is the ticket of the complainant and his family members were upgraded to AC 3 Tier and had the complainant verified the chart properly he could have travelled in the upgraded compartment.  But this defence of the opposite parties has no meaning.  In fact, by not denying the allegation of the complainants that the complainants were unable to get into the compartment and inspite of the request made by them no one came forward to help them, would clearly establish the situation. It is the bounden duty of the Railway staff to ensure safe and comfortable journey to the passengers.  When they fail to provide comfortable journey definitely there is negligence of service on their part.   Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel a sum of Rs.50,000/- awarded as compensation is on the higher side and hence the same is reduced to Rs.30,000/-, which would meet the ends of justice. 

 

11.    In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed, by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.  Except this modification, the order dated 21.04.2014 passed in C.C. No.23 of 2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem is confirmed in all other aspects.  Consequently, the Appeal is partly allowed.

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                        R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April /2022