IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 245/2009 DATED 07.10.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> Complainant Mr.C.D.Nagarajan, No.1522, Kalyani, C & D Block, Anikethana Road, Mysore-570023.<br /> (By Sri.J.Purushotham, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Western Railways, Mysore Division, Mysore.<br /> 2. The Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railways, Mysore Division, Mysore.<br /> 3. Mr.R.K.Mahajan, Private Secretary, Office of Ministry of Railways, <br /> New Delhi.<br /> 4. Ministry of Railways, Government of India, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi.<br /> (By Sri. H.V.Sreenath, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 10.07.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 10.08.2009<br /> Date of order : 07.10.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 27 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking direction to recalculate the fare and refund the difference collected from the complainant for traveling in Shatabdi and further, compensation for loss in business and also damages for deficiency in service on account of breach of trust and Unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> 2. Amongst other facts in the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant is a businessmen. He has to travel from Mysore to Bangalore for business purpose. Shatabdi train No.2008-2007 is non-stop train from Mysore to Bangalore. Opposite parties charged the complainant for non-stop service. Though, said train is non-stop between Mysore and Bangalore, is stopped for crossing other trains, all most in every trip irrespective of which train arrive first at the level crossing. It led delay in reaching the MYsore. Business of the complainant is hampered. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Opposite parties have field version, stating that Shatabdi express is prestigious train and opposite parties are aware that punctuality should be maintained. However, the train will be stopped at times owing to operational reasons and in the interest of safety. The stoppage of the train is unavoidable in single line working system. On the days in question alleged by the complainant, the train arrived Mysore 20 mints. Late than the schedule time. It was due to crossing of the Tippu express and speed restrictions imposed due to on going repairs of the track, which is unavoidable and beyond the control of the opposite parties. Further, it is contend that for review of fare as per Railway’s Act complainant has to approach the Railway Rates Tribunal. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of the respective contentions, both parties have filed affidavits and certain documents are produced. We have heard arguments and perused the material on record.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Without repeating the facts noted earlier, the opposite parties admitted late arrival of the train in question. It is stated, late arrival was on the dates in question. But, the complainant has alleged, it is all most in every trip. The complainant claims, he is regular traveler by the said train from Mysore to Bangalore and Bangalore to Mysore. <br /> <br /> 8. Late arrival is admitted, let it be atleast on the days in question. Punctuality is the normal rule and delay is an exception. Hence, it is for the opposite parties to prove exceptional circumstances. <br /> <br /> 9. So far concerned to schedule time of the train in question, the complainant has produced paper cutting and in respect of the timings of departure and arrival, absolutely there is no dispute.<br /> <br /> 10. The opposite parties contend that owing to operational reasons and in the interest of safety, stoppage is unavoidable in single line. When the opposite parties have fixed the time, they must be well aware of the said fact and if it was not possible to run the train on the given schedule time, they could have fixed more time than already done. For this reason, the reason assigned by the opposite parties cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 11. In the affidavit of opposite parties, it is stated safety first, speed next. Also, it is stated, the common scientific anology as to be understood, two things cannot occupy a same parallel space at same time. Here also, two trains cannot run at the same time at the same place on single track. This cannot be disputed and when the opposite parties were aware of this fact, they could not have fixed the time as already done. Hence, said reason also cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 12. The train in question is non-stop superfast one and admittedly, the opposite parties collect superfast charges and hence, every passenger including the complainant expects the opposite parties to run the said train as per the schedule timing. Non-keeping of the schedule time by the opposite parties without justifiable grounds, amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 13. The complainant has asked certain reliefs regarding calculation of the fare and to refund difference in the fare of the superfast and passenger train etc., So also, the complainant has sought damages. However, considering the entire facts, giving direction to the opposite parties to run the train as per the schedule will meet the ends of justice.<br /> <br /> 14. Accordingly, our finding is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> <br /> 15. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to run the Shatabdi superfast train No.2008-2007 as per the schedule time and for any reasons if it is not possible, then the opposite parties to re-schedule the timings, within a period of three months from the date of this order.<br /> 3. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 7th October 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />