Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/296

THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,COMMERCIAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRADEEP M V - Opp.Party(s)

S RANGANADHAN

20 May 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.296/2015

JUDGMENT DATED : 20.05.2015

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.505/2012 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam order dated : 29.11.2014)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                                : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS       : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

          1.The Divisional Railway Manager,

          Commercial , Thycaud,

          Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014

 

          2.The Station Master,

          Aluva Railway Station,

          Aluva - 68310

 

          3.The Chairman and Managing Director,

          Konkan Railway Corporation Limited,

          Belapur Bhavan, Sector 11, Plot No.6, CBD Belapur,

          Navi Mumbai - 4000614

          (By Adv.Sri.S.Renganathan)

 

                                                         

                                                          2                                                                                   

                                                                                                                   Vs

RESPONDENT

          Shri.Pradeep.M.V

          Residing at Shreeragam, Vidakuza,

          Aluva,

          Pin - 683 106

          Kerala State

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The Divisional Commercial Manager (Railways), Thiruvananthapuram has preferred this appeal representing the opposite parties challenging the order in CC.No.505/2012 in the CDRF, Ernakulam. The complainant and his family members had reserved railway tickets for travel from Aluva Railway Station to Uduppi on 19.05.2012. They had also reserved tickets for return journey from Uduppi to Aluva on 05.07.2012. The return tickets were reserved for journey in Train No.12618 Mangala Lakshadweep Express which was scheduled to leave Uduppi at 11.20 P.M. on 05.07.2012. Berth Numbers 51,2,3,1 & 4 in Coach B1 were allotted to them for return journey. It is alleged in the complaint that they reached Uduppi Railway Station for

 

3

 return journey at 10.Pm on 05.07.2012. On enquiry the station master at Uduppi told the complainant that the time schedule of Mangala Express was changed and it would leave Uduppi Railway Station at 12.50 A.M. The complainant and his family members waited and boarded the train and found to their shock that the births allotted to them were occupied by other passengers. The ticket examiner only harassed the complainant and his family members saying that the tickets related to the train on the previous day. He insisted the complainant to take ticket from the starting point of the train and imposed fine. The complainant was compelled to pay Rs.5500/-. The acts of the T.T.E.amounts to deficiency in service. Hence he approached the CDRF, Ernakulam.

          2.      Before the consumer forum opposite parties 1 & 2 filed joint version and the third opposite party filed separate version. Both of them admitted reservation of tickets by complainant for return journey as alleged. Opposite parties 1 & 2 took the contention that since the incident happened within the jurisdiction of the Managing Director, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, they were not in a position to make any remarks on the allegations in the complaint. The Konkan Railway Corporation Limited was impleaded as third opposite party subsequently.

4

 The stand taken by the third opposite party is that since Aluva Railway Station is located in the Southern Railway, it is for them to confirm the allegations relating to reservation etc. It is further contended that Mangala Lakshadweep Express starts from H.Nizamuddin (Under Northern Railway) and runs upto Ernakulam Junction under the southern Railway. The role of the third opposite party is to carry passengers travelling in its jurisdiction and to accommodate the passengers whose names are shown in the reservation chart. As the names of the complainant and his family members were not available in the reservation chart of Train No.12618 on 05.07.2012, the third opposite party could not accommodate the complainant and his family members. Further there was change of time schedule and the complainant ought to have booked tickets after ascertaining the change in timings.

          3.      Before the Consumer Forum, the complainant gave evidence as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 & A2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Accepting the case of the complainant, the Consumer Forum directed refund of the excess fare and fine collected by the opposite parties and awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

5      

4.      At the time of admission of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant was heard in detail.

          5.      It is an admitted fact that return tickets with berth were reserved by the complainant for his travel and travel of his family members from Uduppi to Aluva on 05.07.2012. The train in which the tickets with berth were reserved was the Mangala Lakshadweep Express scheduled to leave Uduppi Station at 11.20 P.M on 05.07.2012. The grievance of the complainant is that on boarding the train they found to their shock that the berths were occupied by other passengers. The T.T.E treated them harshly and realized fare from the starting point of the train along with fine. The question is whether the T.T.E was in any way justified in collecting excess fare as well as imposing fine.

          6.      One of the contentions raised is that there are two time schedules for trains running through the Konkan Railway which is announced well in advance and the complainant ought to have booked tickets after ascertaining the change in the timings of the trains. This contention indirectly supports the view allegedly taken by the T.T.E that the complainant ought to have booked tickets in the train for the previous

 

6

day. The absurdity of this argument can be seen from the admitted facts itself. As per the time schedule, given in the tickets the train was scheduled to leave Uduppi Station at 11.20 P.M on 05.07.2012. As per the changed schedule the Managala Express on 05.07.2012 was scheduled to arrive at Uduppi Station at 0056 hrs and leave Uduppi Station at 0058 hours. The difference in timings is only 98 minutes. Obviously, the complainant reserved tickets for travel during the night on 05.07.2012 and during that night only one Mangala Lakshadweep Express would pass through uduppi Station. Therefore, there is no scope for the contention that the complainant should have reserved tickets for the train on the previous day. Identical situation can arise even when the train gets delayed due to operational reasons and delayed running of trains is a normal feature of the Indian Railways. If the contention of the appellant is accepted then if a train scheduled to leave at 11.20 pm. arrives late due to operational delays and leaves the station, Say at 001 hrs persons who have reserved tickets from that station can be denied entry. The fact appears to be that the T.T.E had already sold the berths and found convenient excuses to deny the seats and berths to the complainant and family members.

7

          7.      The technical contention that the opposite parties are not in a position to furnish full particulars is also taken as a convenient excuse. In stations where computerized reservation facility is available, tickets and return tickets can be reserved on all India  basis and Northern Railway , Southern Railway or and other railway comes under the common jurisdiction of Indian Railways and the division is made only for administrative convenience. It is surprising that a public utility service like Indian Railways finds excuses in such technical contentions.

          8.      A contention is also raised that the names of the complainant and the family members were not available in the reservation chart of Train No.12618 on 05.07.2012. The contention is taken without producing the reservation chart. The excuse put forth is that reservation charts would be kept only for six months. The fallacy of the argument lies in the fact that the complaint was filed on 23.08.2012 in less that two months after the incident on 05.07.2012 and the notice from the complaint in all probability would have been received by them within six months. It was the bounden duty of the opp.parties to preserve the disputed chart and produce the same before the consumer forum. At any rate, no dispute as to the identity of the train in which the complainant

8

booked his seats with berth can be raised because of the changed timings of that train. During monsoon trains passing through Konkan Railway would get delayed and that is the reason why the running times are extended. The changed timings are published in advance only for the convenice of the passengers to adjust their arrival for the purpose of boarding the train. Here, this is made a ruse to deny the legitimate seats with berth to the complainant and his family members.

          It is surprising that the opposite parties are inclined to justify the actions of their erring employees. Instead of punishing their employees, with a view to put an end to such undesirable practices by T.T.Es, if the Indian Railways is going to support them the situation is only likely to become worse. There is absolutely no merit in the appeal and it is unnecessary to issue notice to the complainant respondent. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.296/2015

JUDGMENT

DATED : 20.05.2015

 

 

                                                                             BE/