Dt. 23.12.2015
JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 09.07.14, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit II, in CC No. 299 of 2013 , whereby the complaint was allowed with cost and compensation.
The Complainant’s case, in brief , was as follows:
The Complainant travelled by reserved Coach No. S-5 of Train No. 12842 (Coromondal Express) from Chennai to Howrah on 15th May, 2013. The journey, according to the Complainant, was horrible, hell like and disastrous because of overcharging of food items/denying to serve food as per published Menu and Pricelist/supply of inferior quality food and other reasons including overcrowding of compartment caused by entry of unauthorized passengers and unhygienic condition of toilets. The pantry car officials were found to be arrogant, who denied to serve food as per the Railway menu and price . He requested the bearers to call Pantry Car Manager but they refused to do so. After lodging complaint through Help Line No. 1800 111 321 for assistance , the Manager came and agreed to serve the food. But, the food they served was substandard , less in quantity and also inferior in quality . One of the pantry car staff with the TTE tried to harass the Complainant . Further, the compartment was over crowded with passengers who did not have reservation in the compartment but were occupying reserved seats causing inconvenience to the valid and confirmed ticket holders. When the issue of overcrowding was brought to the notice of the TTE , he completely ignored the matter. Thirdly , the condition of the toilets was very bad which caused the Complainant serious inconvenience and he fell ill both mentally and physically . From the running train the Complainant informed about his inconvenience to almost all top officials of South Eastern Railway via SMS which were delivered and some of them were even acknowledged. The Complainant after reaching home and after recovery from the trauma and severe mental shock and physical difficulties wrote to Railway Board through Public Grievance Portal and many of them were duly acknowledged and candidly admitted by the concerned authorities. In the said circumstances the Complainant filed a petition of complaint and prayed for direction upon the OPs to pay compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- for deficiency in service / unfair trade practice and harassment and both physical and mental agony along with interest @ 18% p.a. till final payment and also litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
The complaint has been contested by the OPs, who in their W.V. denied all material allegations and contended that after receiving the complaint , the authority concerned enquired into the matter and came to know that the Complainant demanded some extra food items as per his choice which was not included in the menu of standard casserole meals (Veg).The pantry car staff informed the Complainant that in addition to standard casserole meals any extra items of food, if demanded by the passenger, could be supplied on receipt of extra price for those extra items of food. The Pantry Car Manager tried to convince the Complainant regarding price of food items and thereafter the Complainant placed his orders for food as per his choice and accordingly, food was served to him as per his order. Regarding over crowding with unauthorized passengers, the OPs submitted that there was no unauthorized persons occupying the berth of any authorized passengers . It was also not a fact that the TTE was collecting money from the passengers and distributing seats to the unauthorized passengers. The fact was that TTE was only checking the ticket of the passengers and collecting the amount due from the passengers as a result of fare revision effected from 22.01.13 . The OPs further submitted in their W.V. that the Complainant himself opined ‘good’ about the vendor service and veg. meal in the passenger opinion card and there was no evidence of over charging. The complaint about over crowding of the compartment could not be proved with any evidence. It was also submitted that dry sweeping of coach and wet cleaning of toilets and wash basin was done thoroughly under supervision of responsible Railway officials, hence the allegation of unhygienic and disastrous condition of toilet was not true. The relief sought for in the compliant was not admissible in the eye of law. Hence, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
Ld. Forum below having perused the compliant and other materials on record and also after overall assessment of the arguments as advanced by the Complainant and the Ld. Lawyer of the OP observed that the OP has admitted that the Complainant’s allegation against railway catering service was worst in nature as it had been seen that the authority concerned had imposed penalty for the lapses of catering services. Further, Ld. Forum below was of the view that the TTES like the ticketless passengers as ‘they are the source of extra income and it is common picture in all the long route train service and this picture can not be denied by the Chief Commercial Manager’ . Ld. Forum below also mentioned about a CAG report published in Times of India on 02.08.2013 which specifically stated that the service in the sleeper coach is very poor. Considering all material facts and taking note of sum other published materials the Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant within a period of one month , failing which penal interest @ Rs. 400/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree would be realized.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below , the Appellants have come up before this Commission with a prayer for direction to set aside the impugned order.
The memorandum of appeal has been filed together with the copies of the impugned order , the petition of complaint , the W.V. and other documents including the Complainant’s grievance addressed to the Ministry of Railways on different dates between 17th May 2013 and 7th August 2013 and also the letter of the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager of South Eastern Railway among other documents. L.C.R. has been consulted.
We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants and the Respondent appearing in person .
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the material facts as stated in the W.V. Ld. Forum below made only floating remarks and referred to such stray incidents published in newspapers as were not connected with the petition of complaint. It was argued that the grievances of the Complainant were not supported with cogent evidence. No other passenger had any adverse comment about the supply of food or over crowding of the compartment or the unhygienic condition of the toilets attached to the compartment in which the Complainant / Respondent travelled on 15/16May , 2013. Though the train was overcrowded with wait- listed and open ticket passengers , there was no unauthorized passenger in the compartment where the Complainant was seated. In fact, to control the crowd special squads were deputed . Ld. Forum below passed the order on the basis of surmises and conjectures referring to certain incidents as published in newspapers but as no evidence could be filed by the Complainant in support of his sufferings , the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- was arbitrary and biased. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The Respondent / Complainant appearing in person submitted that the complaint was made immediately after having been ill-treated by the staff of the pantry car in the matter of refusal of desired food as per the menu/price list of the Railway Catering Service. It was only on the demand of other co-passengers that the Pantry Manager appeared in the compartment and apologized for the fault on the part of the pantry car staff . Tendering of apology itself implies the lapses of service on their part . Again , the OP / Appellant has categorically admitted in their reply dated 20th September to the e-mail grievance of the Complainant that the compartment was over crowded with unauthorized passengers. The toilets were in bad condition and blocked by unauthorized passengers which caused serious inconvenience . Ld. Forum below duly considered the evidence filed by him on affidavit and passed the impugned order which may be upheld.
The Respondent referred to the order of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 3354 of 2008 , judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bikaner Urban Improvement Trust -vs- Mohal Lal 2010 CTJ 121 (Supreme Court) (CP), judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Rameshwari Devi and Ors.- vs- Nirmala Devi and Ors, order of this Commission in FA/709/12 and also the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh -vs- Healing Touch Hospital (AIR 2000 /SC 3138) , emphasizing that his case is such as will not only serve the purpose of recompensing the individual but also bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider .
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any material irregularity or jurisdictional error.
Decision with Reasons:
The Complainant having allegedly experienced severe inconvenience and inadequate services of the OP/Appellant filed his grievances to the authorities concerned. Having received no satisfactory response to his complaint , he lodged a consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum below.
It appears from the impugned order that the Ld. Forum below considered the petition of complaint and other materials on record, apart from consideration of the arguments as advanced by the concerned parties.
The fact goes that the deficiency in service on the part of the OP/Appellant in regard to supply of food could not be disproved particularly , as emphasized by the Complainant / Respondent , in view of the letter of the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager dated 17.06.2013, wherein it has been stated that the matter was taken up seriously by the competent authority and penalty has been imposed on the Pantry Car Service Licensee against the lapses of the catering services. The inconvenience as caused to the Complainant was regretted in clear terms . In that position the Appellant can not deny their failure to provide optimum catering service to their passengers. Ld. Forum below has rightly observed the point of grievance raised by the Complainant .
Secondly, regarding overcrowding of the Complainant , Ld. Forum below observed that most of the long running trains are packed up with unauthorized passengers every day. This was no doubt a generalized view rather than case specific. However, the OP Appellant admitted that the train was overcrowded, though the Complainant / Respondent in his evidence stated that the OP had admitted the fact of overcrowding of his compartment with unauthorized passengers. If the train is admitted to be overcrowded it is hard to believe that the compartment in which the Complainant was travelling was free from any sort of overcrowding as alleged.
Ld. Forum’s observation about the unhygienic condition of the toilets is linked with the general observation of the CAG in their report about poor maintenance of latrine /bathroom of coaches in sleeper classes of trains. No specific evidence in respect of the alleged unhygienic condition of the toilets appears to be provided and such contention remains presumptive in nature.
After perusal of the material on record and also upon hearing of the parties concerned we are inclined to hold that the deficiency in the matter of food and also in respect of overcrowding of the compartment in which the Complainant /Respondent was travelling has been substantiated, while the complaint about unhygienic condition of toilets remained unconvincing . Ld. Forum’s order suffers to some extent from material irregularity. Accordingly, the appeal may be allowed in part with modification of the impugned order. Hence,
Ordered
That the appeal be and the same is allowed in part with modification of the impugned order to the effect that the Appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation in place of Rs, 50,000/- together with Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. The entire amount of Rs.22,000/- shall be paid by the Appellants within a period of 40 days from the date of this order , failing which the said amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till full realization. There shall be no separate order as to cost.
Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Forum below along with the L.C.R.
