BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 487 of 2015
Date of Institution: 10.5.2015
Date of Decision: 02.05.2016
Jaswinderjit Singh Madaan S/o H.S. Madaan aged 57 years, R/o C-2127, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Northern Railways through its General Manager, New Delhi Railway Station, Delhi
- Station Master, Amritsar Railway Station, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under sections 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh. M.L.Sharma,Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Sh.Ramesh Chander Sharma
Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Jaswinderjit Singh Madaan complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant is a law abiding citizen and a Senior Officer of Oriental Insurance Company and is presently posted at Tarn Taran. The complainant was travelling from Amritsar to Chandigarh on 28.5.2015 as he had to attend some official meeting at Chandigarh on Amritsar Chandigarh Superfast Express Train No. 12242 on Seat No. 54 Coach No. C-1, PNR No. 2748807990. The complainant used the toilet of the complainant and after using the toilet, the complainant was surprised to find that there was no water in the tap of toilet. The complainant got embarrassed as in such a situation he could do nothing. After this incident, the complainant complained orally to the TTE of the train but he stated that this was not his duty and he was not responsible for any such shortcoming. The TTE intimated that the contractor is liable for such a lapse and he can complain against the contractor. But, however, the TTE refused to give the name and address of the contractor. After the said incident, the complainant lodged written complaint on feed back form No. 1 to TTE Maninder Singh, mobile phone No. 9779700720 as he duly received the complaint. After receiving illogical answer from the TTE, the complainant contacted the Station Master of Chandigarh Railway Station after reaching Chandigarh but the complainant could not get any reliable answer. Rather the Station Master told that complainant that he was an officer and he should not involve himself in such petty issues. The complainant is a public spirited person and has just filed this complaint to fix the responsibility of this error on the part of Railway Authorities. The complainant is not interested in any compensation or penalty but the complainant just want that such error should not be repeated in future. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(i) That the responsibility for non availability of water in the toilet of compartment should be fixed, and the guilty person should be punished as per rules of the department so that such incident should not be repeated.
(ii) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- for mental and physical harassment faced by the complainant.
(iii) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to under law, equity and fair play be also granted in favour of the complainant against the opposite party.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and has misrepresented the material facts from this Forum ; that the complainant has filed the instant complaint on the basis of false and frivolous allegations ; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, as such the complaint may be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it is denied that there was no water in the tap of toilet. It is pertinent to mention here that the work of clearing and watering was attended by labour of M/s. H.S. Service Providers on that day under the supervision of SSE Amritsar. The complete watering of the train was properly attended by the staff of Train No. 12242. It is further stated that the entire facility was provided in the train. The complainant never complained orally about anything to the TTE and rather delivered the feed back form which the TTE received from him. The complainant has levelled false allegations besides him, no other passenger has made any such complaint. Remaining facts narrated in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for the dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, feed back form Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, copy of ticket Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. Ramesh Chander Sharma,Advocate counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Roshan Singh, Senior Divisional Commercial Officer Ex.OP1,2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 & 2.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties have vehemently contended that the Railway Authorities were not responsible for providing water facility in the toilets of the Railway Coach in dispute. As a matter of fact work of cleaning and watering was out-sourced to M/s. H.S.Service Providers during that period under the supervision of SSE Amritsar. It is further contended that complete watering of the train was properly attended to by the staff of train No. 12242. Except for the complainant, no other passenger has complained of any lack of water facility in the toilet of the train in dispute. The complaint filed by the complainant is based on false allegations and the same is liable to be dismissed being frivolous.
7. However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is evidence in the shape of affidavit of the complainant in which the allegations made in the complaint, have been reiterated. The opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Roshan Singh, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Ferozepur, to rebut the evidence of the complainant. But, however, since the said official was not on board on the said train on the fateful day, therefore, evidence adduced by him is hearsay in nature . As such, statement of Sh. Roshan Singh cannot be used to controvert the evidence adduced by the complainant in support of his case. In such a situation, the case of the complainant that there was no watering facility in the toilet of the train on the fateful day and the further fact that the complainant lodged feed back Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 , besides producing the copy of the ticket to prove that he was on board , goes un-rebutted on record. In such a situation, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is writ large . The contention that the work of cleaning and watering was outsourced to some private company or that the said company was looking into that matter, no laxity can be extended to the opposite parties to escape from their liability of keeping the train neat clean or providing the facility of water, etc therein. As a matter of fact the facts stated in the complaint have not been adequately disputed by the Railway and no particulars in the written version have been given to refute the allegations made in the complaint. Simple fact that opposite parties have denied the allegations of the complainant, will not absolve them of the negligence or poor maintenance on their part. We find support in this respect from South Eastern Railway Petitioner Vs. Yeshwant Tiwari & Ors, Respondents Revision Petition No. 1065 of 2002 decided on 6.9.2015 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, wherein it has been laid down that :-
“The facts alleged by the complainants in the complaint were not disputed by the Railway by giving particulars except in its written version it had mainly denied whatever the complainants said. Railway did not file any evidence of the train attendant or any other person to rebut the evidence led by the complainant. District Forum held in favour of the complainants and directed the Railway to pay Rs. 55000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as cost.
Railway went in appeal to the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum except that the compensation was reduced from Rs. 55000/- to Rs. 10000/- . Still feeling aggrieved, Railway has come before us. There is a concurrent finding against the Railway. Moreover, it has not been denied that Railway was required to see that water was available in the train. We do not find it is a fit cause for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is dismissed.”
8. From the ruling cited above, it becomes evident that the negligence on the part of the opposite parties was serious in nature . Water supply in the toilet of a train is not only a necessity but the same is amenity for which the consumer has paid the consideration. As such, the railway authorities are deficient in service. Facts of the present complaint are synonymous with the facts of the authority cited ‘supra’. Therefore, instant complaint succeeds and the opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- and also pay a sum of Rs. 1000/ on account of litigation expenses. If the compliance of this order is not made within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order, the amount awarded shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of the order until full and final recovery. . Copies of the orders 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 : 2.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar ) President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
