BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.14/09
Dated this the 17th day of April 2012
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
By G. Yadunadhan, President:
The petition was filed on 13-1-2009. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a retired High School Teacher. She had gone to Kanhangad for collecting her pension along with her son-in-law, Mr. Alphonse. For her return trip back to Kottayam she along with her son-in-law had booked tickets in Train No. 6630Malabar Express and tickets issued showed that they were in the waiting list. On the day of the travel viz. 4-11-08 on reaching the Kanhangad Railway Station they had contacted the concerned T.T.E. who after scrutiny of the ticket as well as the reservation chart maintained with him had intimated that the tickets were confirmed and berth Nos. 17 and 78 in S6 compartment were allotted to the complainant and her son-in-law respectively and the same so endorsed on the ticket itself. After boarding the train the said T.T.E. had again checked he tickets and confirmed the berths allotted to them, whereupon the complainant and her son-in-law had retired for the night to their respective berths, with the son-in-law keeping the ticket with him for safe custody. At around 11 P.M. the complainant was rudely awakened by another T.T.E. demanding the ticket. The train had reached the Kozhikode Railway Station the complainant had politely apprised him of the fact that the tickets were retained by her son-in-law who was in berth No. 78 and that either the said T.T.E. could verify the ticket with him or she would fetch the ticket. But the said T.T.E. behaved in a very improper and arrogant manner and was shouting that the complainant was traveling without ticket. Her request to verify the reservation chart was also declined by the said T.T.E. There after at his direction the Railway Policemen who were apparently on duty in the said compartment forcibly made the complainant to remove all her luggage and carry the same towards the end of the compartment and they were using abusive language in the guise of questing her. The humiliation and torture continued, till two local Policemen of Kerala Police intervened and fetched the ticket from Mr. Alphonse. Even through at first the said T.T.E. in spite of production of the ticket as well insisted that the name of the complainant was not there in the reservation chart, but on
proper verification at the insistence of the local policemen as well as the some of the passengers who had intervened seeing the plight of the complainant, the said T.T.E. compared the list and gave her another berth No.49. All these endorsements were made on the ticket. After around one hour of torture and subjecting her to much mental pain and agony, the complainant was given berth No. 49 and she continued her travel to Kottayam. Immediately on reaching Kottayam she had lodged a complaint with the Station Master, Kottayam Railway Station. She had also addressed the Hon’ble Minister for Railways, Government of India and preferred a complaint before the Kerala Women’s Commission. Complainant had boarded the reservation compartment and occupied the berth at the instruction of T.T.E. from the Kanhangad Railway Station. He had specifically endorsed in the ticket that the berth allotted to her is No.17. The act and conduct on the part of the officials who were manning the S6 coach of Train No. 6630, Malabar Express on 4-11-08 was highly irresponsible and improper. Complainant has submitted an application under the Right to Information Act with the Public Information Officer, Palghat Railway Division on 24-11-08 requiring information regarding the incident aforementioned. It is now learnt that it was Sri. P.O. Abdulraheem who was the ticket examiner for the said coach from Mangalore to Kannur on 4-11-2008 and Sri. P.L. George who was the T.T.E. from Kannur to Ernakulam Town. This information was furnished by the Public Information Officer of the opposite parties. The complainant also received a communication dated 6-12-2008 from the office of Divisional Railway Manager, wherein it is seen admitted that it was the failure of the T.T.E. who manned the coach from Mangalore to Kannur to accommodate the passengers in their respective berths which has resulted some sort of disturbance in the compartment of Kozhikode Railway station. Further stated that departmental action is being initiated against the T.T.E. for his lapse in performing the duty and that regarding the T.T.E. of Trivandrum division who manned the coach from Kannur to Trivandrum, the grievance has been forwarded to Additional divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Trivandrum for necessary action for the disturbance happened at Kozhikode. On account of the negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties the complainant was subjected to much loss, injury, hardship and damage. Opposite parties are liable and responsible for the same. Therefore complainant is seeking relief against opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with costs.
After serving notice opposite parties entered in appearance and filed their version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and the allotment of berth No. 17 to the complainant in S6 coach to travel from Kanhangad to Kottayam by Train No. 6630 on 4-11-08 is denied. It is true that the berth numbers were allotted to the complainant at Kanhangad Railway Station just before the starting of her journey. But at the time of marking the berth numbers on the ticket, the TTE worked from Mangalore to Kannur Station had mistakenly written berth No.17 instead of berth No. 49 allotted to the complainant by the system. It was not an intentional omission from the part of said T.T.E. but an inadvertent writing of the berth number by him. The berth number 17 in S6 was booked by another passenger from Kozhikode to Quilon Station. When the train reached at Kozhikode station at about 11 P.M., it was found that the complainant was occupying berth No.17 instead of her allotted berth No. 49. Hence the T.T.E. worked from Kannur to Ernakulam enquired about the ticket details of the complainant and she was subsequently accommodated in berth No. 49 which was allotted to her by the system. This was actually happened in the train, which has been given colours by the complainant according to her whims and fancies. It is respectfully submitted that there was no any type of humiliation or torture from the part of the T.T.Es worked in the compartment in which the complainant was traveling. The only thing was that the complainant was occupying in berth No.17 instead of 49. The complainant’s ticket was with her son-in-law who was sleeping in berth No. 78. The complainant was accommodated in berth No.49 without any delay or discomfort as soon as the mistake is noticed by the ticket examiner. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation as claimed in the complaint. There was absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The error occurred in this matter is a human error which could be
rectified at the appropriate time by the responsible officials employed under the opposite parties. After shifting from berth No.17 to the complainant’s original berth No. 49, the complainant had traveled without any inconvenience. It is submitted that the verification of tickets in the train cannot be twisted as a torture or harassment on the passenger. It is done for the safety and security of the traveling public. Therefore the complainant is not eligible for any compensation against opposite parties. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration (1) Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties, if so what is the relief and cost.
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on complainant’s side. Opposite party has no oral or documentary evidence.
On perusal of Ext.A1 it is very clear that the T.T.E. who is working on particular day from Mangalore to Kannur marked the confirmation berth No. 17,78 in S6 coach of Train No. 6630 Malabar Express. These berths were allotted from Kanhangad itself. As per the instruction of concerned T.T.E. the complainant and her son-in-law occupied the respective berth. While the train reached at Kozhikode another T.T.E. who is incharge from Kannur to Ernakulam Town approached the complainant and asked her ticket, she informed that the ticket was in the custody of her son-in-law who has occupied berth No. 78. Opposite party has admitted this fact in their version also.. Without enquiring or verifying the chart, unnecessarily T.T.E. behaved in a very improper manner and also shouted to the complainant stating that she was traveling without ticket. According to O.Ps’ version the concerned T.T.E. behaved very politely but no evidence adduced in this regard. Ext.A1 shows another berth No. 49. Why they put the berth No.49instead of 17 has no explanation. Two persons are traveling in the train but T.T.E. allotted three berth was seen from Ext.A1 itself. How it happened so, no explanation by the opposite parties. O.P. simply says hat this was done mistakenly and not willfully. Complainant being a consumer it was not a satisfactory reply. The law provides that the duty of T.T.E. is to safe guard all reserved passengers. Here there is a deficiency of service on the part of both T.T.E. who were on duty on 4-11-08 from Mangalore to Kannur and Kannur to Ernakulam. As per Ext.A6 Mr. P.T. Abdul Rahim who was the T.T.E. worked from Mangalore to Kannur who alone is the person who marked the berth No.17 and 78 upon Ext. A1. Ext. A9 clearly shows Mr. P.L. George, Senior Ticket Examiner, Ernakulam Town was the person who marked the berth No. 49 in Ext.A1 ticket. This act also is deficiency of service on the part of concerned T.T.E. This act of opposite parties -1 to 4 is vicariously liable for the act done by both T.T.E. All these act indicate that there is a failure on duty by both T.T.E. Ext.A2 to A9 Documents are pertaining to the effort made by the complainant to take proper action by Railway authority against the concerned T.T.E. In Ext.A7 it reveals that the authority convinced the failure of duty of T.T.E. who had attended the duty on 4-11-08 and the departmental action initiated against them. All these documents produced by the complainant and the evidence show the clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Under these circumstances the complainant being a 57 years old woman is definitely entitled for relief. This type of harassment should not be encouraged from the service provider who ever may be authority. The complainant is definitely entitled for a compensation for the mental pain effected for the journey of late hours, due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.50000/- as compensation to the complainant and also pay a cost of Rs.1000/-. Opposite party shall pay the
amount to the complainant within 30 days and they can realize the amount equally from the concerned T.T.E. Mr. P.L. George, Senior Ticket Examiner, Ernakulam Town Railway Station and Mr. P.T. Abdul Rahim, Ticket Examiner, Sleeper Depot, Southern Railway, Kannur by way of initiating proceedings against them. Comply the order within one month failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest from the date of order.
Pronounced in the open court this the 17th day of April 2012.
Date of filing: 13-01-2009
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Photocopy of the reservation ticket dtd.04.11.08.
A2. copy of complaint with the Station Master Kottayam Railway station dtd.05.11.08.
A3.Complaint letter to the Hon’ble Minister for Railways, Govt.of India dtd.Nil
A4.Complaint letter to the Kerala Women’s Commission.
A5. Copy of the application under the Right to Information Act with P.I.C,Palaghat Railway
Division dtd 24.11.08.
A6. Copy of the information furnished by the Public Information Officer to the complainant
dtd.27.11.08.
A7.Letter to the complainant by the opposite party dtd.06.12.08.
A8. Letter by the palaghat Divisional Southern Railway to the complainant dtd.16.12.08(3 in
Nos.)
A9. Letter by the southern Railway Trivandrum commercial branch to the complainant
dt.24.12.08
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Alice Joseph(complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
