KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 660/12

JUDGMENT DATED:23.01.2013

 (Against the order in CC.471/06 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur, dtd:03.12.2011)

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI               :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                            : MEMBER

The Divisional Commercial Manager,

Southern Railway, Thycaud,                              : APPELLANT

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv:Sri. S. Renganathan)

          Vs.

P.A.Francis,

Pazhayil House, Cherussery,                             : RESPONDENT

Thaikkattussery.P.O, 680 322.

(By Adv: Sri. V.S. Bhasurendran Nair)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

          This is an appeal filed by the opposite party/railways in CC.471/06 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, December 3, 2011.

          2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this.  The complainant booked a Tatkal reservation ticket for traveling from Thrissur to Hyderabad on January 15, 2006 in Sabari Express by paying Rs.583/-.  When the train arrived the complainant was over crowded due to Sabarimala season.  He was unable to enter the coach. He complained to the TTE.  He did not take any action. Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the railways.  He claimed a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and refund of the train fare.

          3.      The appellant/2^nd opposite party is Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1^st opposite party is the Station Manager of Thrissur railway station.  The opposite parties in their version contended thus:

          It is true that at that time there was crowd in the S4 coach where the complainant had reserved a berth.  He did not make any complaint to TTE.  If the complainant wanted, he could have boarded the train.  All the other passengers have boarded the coach.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          4.      The complainant was examined as PW1 and he produced Ext.P1 to P4 before the Forum.   On the side of the opposite parties/railways,  RW1 and 2 were examined.  Commissioner was examined as CW1 and his report was marked as Ext.C1.

          5.      On an appreciation of the evidence the Forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railways and ordered them to refund the price of the ticket and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1500/-.  The 2^nd opposite party/Divisional Manager, Southern railways has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

          Following points arise for consideration:

          1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the side of                  the opposite parties/railways?

          2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained.

          6.      For several reasons I am inclined to agree with the finding of the Tribunal that there was deficiency in service on the part of the railways.  Commissioner, CW1 who inspected S4 coach on January 15, 2009 found that it was over crowded and that there were passengers therein even without any ticket.

          7.      The opposite parties/railways examined RW1, Station Master of Thrissur Railway Station and RW2 the TTE of the relevant date but their evidence also shows that there was overcrowd on that day in S4 coach.  PW1 has categorically stated that as it was over crowded he was unable to enter in the said coach.  There is nothing to disbelieve his version.  Ext.P2 is the complaint made by him to the railway authorities.  Therefore lower Forum is perfectly justified in accepting the evidence of PW1 and holding that due to over crowd who was unable to enter that coach on that day.  It follows that there was deficiency in service on the part of the railways.  That being so claimant is entitled to the refund of the train fare and compensation.

          8.      The Forum directed the opposite parties/railways to refund the train fare ie Ext.P1 amount and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1500/-.  But we feel that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. In the circumstances we are of the view that a compensation of Rs.5000/- would be reasonable.

          In the result the appeal is dismissed but the compensation awarded by the lower Forum is reduced to Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA: MEMBER

VL.