IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday, the 22nd day of June, 2012
Filed on 08.03.2012
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
CC/No.74/2012
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.P.J. Kurian 1. Southern Railway, Chennai
Puthanparambil House Represented by its General Manager
East of Chungom Bridge
Alappuzha 2. The Senior Divisional Manager
Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram (By Adv. P.S.Geethakumari)
3. The Chief Commercial Manager -do- -do-
5. The Station Master, Southern Railway Haripad
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows: - The complainant is a senior citizen. He is well reputed both in business and social circle. He reserved three seats in Guruvayur Chennai Express train bearing No.16128. The seats allowed for the complainant and his friends were No. 80, 81, 82 in D3 compartment. The departure of the material train was on 28th January 2012 at 00.45 P.M. The complainant along with his friends reached the station in time, but it was found that the door of the D3 compartment was locked from inside. The complainant and his friends unsuccessfully requested the passengers in the train to open the doors. The complainant frantically sought the help of the RPF personnel who irresponsibly advised them to take the local compartment. The complainant and his friend’s journey was awfully obstructed and they could not attend the business meeting in Madurai. The complainant duly lodged a complaint before the 4th opposite party as to this incident. The complainant communicated his inexplicable grievance to the concerned minister. The complainant's all sort of efforts yielded no results. The complainant sustained immeasurable mental agony and pecuniary loss. Feeling aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite parties turned up and filed joint version. The crux of the opposite parties' contention is that like the other compartments, the door of the D3 compartment was thrown open for the passengers to board in. The train halted in Haripad station for 3 minutes, and several other passengers boarded and disembarked in Haripad station. According to the opposite parties, the complainant and his companions reached belatedly in station after the departure of the material train. The instant complaint is an outcome of the afterthought of the complainant. The intention of the complainant is to make unlawful enrichment. Still, the opposite parties, as a bonhomous gesture are prepared to refund the ticket charge in the event of the original ticket being produced, the opposite parties submit.
3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant and the documents Exts. Al to A3 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, affidavit and counter affidavit were filed.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the questions that crop up for consideration are:-
(a) Whether there was deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. Concededly the complainant reserved three tickets in Guruvayur Chennai Express train bearing No16128 for the purpose of taking a business trip to Madurai with his friends on 28th January 2012. The case of the complainant is that the complainant and his companions reached the railway station at Harpad well in advance in time. Strangely yet, the complainant and the other two could not embark the train, since the doors of the material compartment were being kept locked. The complainant sought the help of the passengers in the said compartment and approached the RPF personnel all in vain. To the contrast, the opposite parties contend that the complainant and his friends reached the station belatedly. By that time, the train must have left the station after the legitimate halt of 3 minutes. According to the opposite arties, the doors of the train were not kept closed, and the passengers even went on board and alighted in the Haripad Station. Bearing in mind lively the contentions put forth by the parties, we meticulously perused materials placed on record by the parties. It appears that the complainant is a senior citizen. He was going to Madurai for participating the business conference scheduled to be conducted there. He reserved the ticket in advance so that he should reach the destination comfortably well within exact time. In this context, he ought to have reached the station sufficiently earlier so that he could catch the train at ease. Going into the surrounding circumstance, it is to be presumed that he must have reached the station in time, more so it is unlikely that a person of complainant's posture would venture out with such an allegation when failed to catch the train for his own fault. It is momentous to see that the opposite parties, except making statements adopted no meaningful steps to disprove the complainant’s case or to prove its own. It is one of the opposite parties' contentions that the several other passengers boarded and got off the material train in Haripad wherein the complainant failed to go on board. The opposite parties could have very well proved the said contention either by any supporting document or by any other means available in law. Without taking any sort of steps to bring home its case, the contentions put forth by the opposite parties do not inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum. At the same time, we find no reason to disbelieve the probable case advanced by the complainant. It has come out in evidence that the complainant is a venerable senior citizen. The public undertaking like the Indian Railway is expected to and is obliged to look upon its passengers, especially the senior citizens with care and courtesy. In the instant case, the complainant was constrained to countenance a bitter experience in the railway station at the hands of the opposite parties. His inevitable journey was thwarted owing to the lackadaisical and recalcitrant attitude of the opposite parties. The agony the complainant sustained must be indescribable. The complainant, no doubt is entitled to relief. It appears the opposite parties are prepared to give back the complainant the ticket charge. We are of the strong view that mere the same is not sufficient. As we have already observed the complainant sustained mental agony beyond description.
6. In view of the facts and findings of the discussions made herein above, the opposite parties are directed to refund the. Ticket charge of Rs.29l/- (Rupees two hundred and ninety one only) to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
The complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 22nd day of June, 2012.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Ticket
Ext.A2 - Copy of the complaint to Minister concerned
Ext.A3 - Duplicate copy of the complaint lodged before the 4th opposite party
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by :-pr/-
Compared by:-
