Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
1. Sh.Ankit Ahuja has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant booked a reserved rail ticket through IRCTC website (irctc.co.in) for travelling alongwith his wife from New Delhi to Amritsar in Air Conditioned Chair Car of Shatabdi Express (Train No.12013) on 12.08.2016 with PNR No.26488329273 Coach no.C-14 and Seat no.61, 65. The payment of total fare for two persons amounting to Rs.1750/- was made by the complainant through credit card/ net banking and the same was duly received by the Indian Railways. The complainant is covered under the definition of Consumer of the Act, whereas the Opposite Parties are service providers to the complainant as such the relationship of the consumer with the Opposite Parties exists. The complainant during the course of journey went to the washroom/ toilet of coach C-14 to answer nature’s call and hurriedly locked the door from inside. Upon relieving himself, when the complainant tried to open the lock, he saw that the door did not close completely. There was big gap between the door and the wall/ frame of the washroom and the inside of washroom was visible from outside even after locking the door. This resulted in huge embarrassment and mental agony to the complainant, also leading to invasion to privacy of the complainant as there were many people outside the washroom. The complainant took photographs of the defective door of the washroom with the camera of his mobile phone and the prints of the same are attached. The aforesaid defect in the door of washroom was brought to the notice of coach attendants who asked the complainant to complaint about it to the train service manager or TTE in the train. The attendant then went to call the train manager who did not come on the spot for 2 hours. After repeated requests to the attendant, Manager finally arrived with the complaint book and a complaint bearing serial No.014 was recorded in the complaint book. The defect was not corrected throughout the journey. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties in not providing the basic amenities/ facilities without any just and sufficient cause amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as well as gross negligence which has caused mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant which entitles the complainant to claim. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties may kindly be summoned in accordance with the law.
b) Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2 lacs.
c) The cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
d) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled under law and equity be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as per the Act; that the present complaint is false and malafide and as such is not maintainable, deserves dismissal; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint in view of provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, which provides a specific remedy in case of any alleged claim or grievance for redressal; that the matter being of peculiar nature & is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the present complaint as such could not be entertained being not in accordance with law being contrary to the terms of the policy & involving complicated questions of facts ad law. The averments in the complaint otherwise are not sustainable in facts and law as the very allegations about the visibility from out the door of toilet of coach No.C-14 causing alleged embarrassment are against the facts, the coach in question since was coach No.99158/NR LWS CZAC as per the records of the Opposite Parties, is running in other rakes of LHB STB till date and there is no complaint of such type of the alleged nature either from any subsequent passenger or escorting or supervising staff, the door of toilet of the train is ever till date in perfect condition and order. The design of the door of the toilet is foldable flap type, which closes by latch & catches at toilet wall panel and there is no provision of rubber bidding on close edges of toilet door. No repair of the said door carried out till date of the relevant coach or toilets thereof, nor any complaint of such type from any quarter or passenger has occurred on this account. The lapse if any as alleged, might have taken due to the hurriedness on the part of the complainant himself while bolting the door, which as per the structure of design and martial used other cannot happens. The actual photographs of the door of the toilet from inside are attached herewith as Z1 to Z3. Even otherwise, the other passengers travelled in same coach using same toilet, had never complained about the alleged Gap between the toilet doors of the said coach either on the same day or travelled thereafter till date, which is very hard to comprehend. The present complaint is not maintainable and the same as such deserves dismissal. On merits, the Opposite Parties took almost same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Raj Kumar, DME Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainant booked a reserved rail ticket through IRCTC website (irctc.co.in) for travelling alongwith his wife from New Delhi to Amritsar in Air Conditioned Chair Car of Shatabdi Express (Train No.12013) on 12.08.2016 with PNR No.26488329273 Coach no.C-14 and Seat no.61, 65. The payment of total fare for two persons amounting to rs.1750/- was made by the complainant through credit card/ net banking and the same was duly received by the Indian Railways. The complainant is covered under the definition of Consumer of the Act, whereas the Opposite Parties are service providers to the complainant as such the relationship of the consumer with the Opposite Parties exists. The complainant during the course of journey went to the washroom/ toilet of coach C-14 to answer nature’s call and hurriedly locked the door from inside. Upon relieving himself, when the complainant tried to open the lock, he saw that the door did not close completely. There was big gap between the door and the wall/ frame of the washroom and the inside of washroom was visible from outside even after locking the door. This resulted in huge embarrassment and mental agony to the complainant, also leading to invasion to privacy of the complainant as there were many people outside the washroom. The complainant took photographs of the defective door of the washroom with the camera of his mobile phone and the prints of the same are attached. The aforesaid defect in the door of washroom was brought to the notice of coach attendants who asked the complainant to complaint about it to the train service manager or TTE in the train. The attendant then went to call the train manager who did not come on the spot for 2 hours. After repeated requests to the attendant, Manager finally arrived with the complaint book and a complaint bearing serial No.014 was recorded in the complaint book. The defect was not corrected throughout the journey. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties in not providing the basic amenities/ facilities without any just and sufficient cause amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice as well as gross negligence which has caused mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant which entitles the complainant to claim.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the matter being of peculiar nature & is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the present complaint as such could not be entertained being not in accordance with law being contrary to the terms of the policy & involving complicated questions of facts ad law. The averments in the complaint otherwise are not sustainable in facts and law as the very allegations about the visibility from out the door of toilet of coach No.C-14 causing alleged embarrassment are against the facts, the coach in question since was coach No.99158/NR LWS CZAC as per the records of the Opposite Parties, is running in other rakes of LHB STB till date and there is no complaint of such type of the alleged nature either from any subsequent passenger or escorting or supervising staff, the door of toilet of the train is ever till date in perfect condition and order. The design of the door of the toilet is foldable flap type, which closes by latch & catches at toilet wall panel and there is no provision of rubber bidding on close edges of toilet door. No repair of the said door carried out till date of the relevant coach or toilets thereof, nor any complaint of such type from any quarter or passenger has occurred on this account. The lapse if any as alleged, might have taken due to the hurriedness on the part of the complainant himself while bolting the door, which as per the structure of design and martial used other cannot happens. The actual photographs of the door of the toilet from inside are attached herewith as Z1 to Z3. Even otherwise, the other passengers travelled in same coach using same toilet, had never complained about the alleged Gap between the toilet doors of the said coach either on the same day or travelled thereafter till date, which is very hard to comprehend. The present complaint is not maintainable and the same as such deserves dismissal. The Opposite Parties have also contended that no other co passenger ever made any complaint to the Opposite Parties regarding the alleged complaint of the complainant. In this regard, the Opposite Parties have placed on record the copy of detail of the operating branch of the alleged date Ex.OP3 as well as daily damage return Ex.OP4, detail of the rake composition Ex.OP5, copies of photos Ex.OP6, Ex.OP7, OP8, OP9, OP10 and Ex.OP11. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the complainant has failed to rebut the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties by any cogent and convincing evidence. Moreover, the complainant has failed to prove or produce any document on record that there is no complaint of such type of the alleged nature either from any subsequent passenger or escorting or supervising staff, the door of toilet of the train is ever till date in perfect condition and order. The design of the door of the toilet is foldable flap type, which closes by latch & catches at toilet wall panel and there is no provision of rubber bidding on close edges of toilet door. No repair of the said door carried out till date of the relevant coach or toilets thereof, nor any complaint of such type from any quarter or passenger has occurred on this account. Hence, this Forum finds no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
ence,
8. From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum. The complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. As such, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 16.08.2017.
