BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> OP.No.95/2004 <br /> Dated: 30..05..2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Thiruvananthapuram Citizens' Protection Forum Reg.No.1351/1990, represented by its President, M. Krishnan Nair, Lekshmi Vihar, Plot No.18, Padmanagar, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram – 23.<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.Station Master, Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 2.Railway Divisional Manager, Thiruvananthapuram Division, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 3.Railway General Manager, South Zone, Chennai.<br /> (By Adv. Shri. V.K. Anil Kumar)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30..12..2005 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 06..05..2008, the Forum on 30..05..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT : <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that complainant is a consumer of Railways. The complainant is the Retired Dy. Superintendent of Police and Senior Citizen. The complainant is also the President of the Voluntarily Organisation namely Thiruvananthapuram Citizens' Protection Forum. The aim of the said Forum is to protect Civil and Legal rights and demands of citizens. The complainant and 63 persons including women pilgrims travelled from Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station to Agra by Train No.2625 Kerala Express in bogie S2 at 11.10 A.M on 13..09..2003 for the Holey Pilgrimage to Himalaya (via) Agra under the leadership of Sri. Gopinathan Nair, Treasurer, Abheda Asramam, East Fort. The seat No.4 was allotted to the complainant by the 1st opposite party. There was rainfall during the journey in the midnight of 13th September, 2003. The roof of the cabin in seat No.3,4,5,6, & 7 in bogie No.S2 Train No.2625 K.K. Express was found leaking and rain water was flowing from top to bottom in the cabin and personal goods of the complainant and others were spoiled. The train reached in Agra on 15..09..2003 evening. The matter was brought to the notice of ticket examiner of the train. But he did not take prompt action in this regard. The technical expert of the train ought to have replaced the leaky coach before the train started. The complainant has mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint claiming 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards cost of the complaint and other reliefs.<br /> 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer. The allegation that the roof of the bogie containing seat Nos. 3,4,5,6 & 7 in coach S2 by Train No.2625 of 13..09..2003 was leaking is denied. The allegation regarding the damage of personal goods of the complainant is also denied as this is false and made with malafide intentions. The complainant has to submit before this Forum whether he has cancelled his journey anywhere enroute, due to the damage of his personal articles. The allegation that the complainant has lodged a complaint with the ticket examiner of the coach is also denied. The complaint is highly exaggerated and having a fictious nature. The said coach was very well checked by the Train Examiner of Mechanical Branch, no such defect was found during these checks. Apart from the scheduled maintenance work before each trip, the said coach had undergone intermediate overhauling on 07..09..2003 in which all the passenger amenity fittings were thoroughly checked. This coach was inducted back into service after intermediate overhauling on 07..09..2003 itself. Though this coach was in service in the Kerala Express for the next 6 months after the alleged incident, neither before nor after the incident, no complaint of this nature has been reported. It may be seriously noted that the said incident was in the back drop of torrential rains in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and other parts of the country during this period. Railways are having proper infrastructure at enroute stations also to attend to mechanical defects, electrical defects etc. Any such complaint has ever been lodged it could have been attended to. There was a complaint book available with the Guard of the train and train Superintendent. No such complaint has been reported in the train by any of the passengers, in this regard. There was no roof leakage in the coach. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3.The points that arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act?<br /> (ii)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs?<br /> 4. To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and examined one Thankappan Nair as PW2. Exts. P1 to P3 were marked on the side of complainant. On the part of opposite parties, E. Manikantan Nair, Senior Section Engineer, Thiruvananthapuram Central was examined as DW1.<br /> 5. Points (i) to (iii) : The first point requiring consideration is whether complainant is a consumer. In the cause title of the complaint it is stated that complainant is Thiruvananthapuram Citizen Protection Forum represented by its President Mr.M. Krishnan Nair, Lekshmi Vihar, Padma Nagar, Fort – P.O. It is not stated as a Voluntary Consumer Association registered under Companies Act or under any other law for the time being in force. It is stated in the complaint that the aim of the above said Forum is to protect Civil and Legal Rights and Demands of citizens. No material on record to show that Thiruvananthapuram Citizen Protection Forum is a Voluntary Consumer Organisation Recognised Consumer Organisations have a right of audience before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Since opposite parties have raised objection regarding the admissibility of the Thiruvananthapuram Citizens' Protection Forum as a complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, the onus of proving complainant as a consumer would lay on the complainant. No evidence is adduced by the complainant to prove that Thiruvananthapuram Citizens' Protection Forum is a consumer. Complaint is seen signed by M. Krishnan Nair, who claims to be the President of the said Forum. It is seen that complaint is signed by M. Krishnan Nair not for and on behalf of the said Forum. On going through the averments in the complaint, it appears that Mr. Krishnan Nair was a consumer of the opposite parties. There may be misdiscription in the cause title of the complaint. Further the complaint is seen filed by the complainant in person, not through any agent/lawyer. Considering all aspects of the complaint and in view of the principles of natural justice, we find complainant is a consumer.<br /> 6. The next point to be discussed is whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The case of the complainant is that the complainant and 63 persons travelled from Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station to Agra by Train No.2625 Kerala Express in Bogie S2 at 11.10 A.M on 13..09..2003 for a pilgrimage to Himalaya (via) Agra under the leadership of Sri. Gopinathan Nair, Treasurer, Abheda Ashramam, East Fort. The seat No.4 was allotted to the complainant by the opposite parties. There was rainfall during the journey in the midnight of 13th September, 2003. The roof of the cabin in seat Nos. 3,4,5,6 & 7 in Bogie No.S2 Train No.2625 Kerala Express was found leaking and rain water was flowing from top to bottom in the cabin and personal goods of the complainant and others were spoiled and could not be used due to the deficiency in service of the respondents. The submission by the complainant is that the said incident was brought to the notice of the Ticket Examiner of the Train on 13..12..2003 night itself. But this Ticket Examiner did not take prompt action in this regard. It is pertinent to note at this juncture, that complainant and 63 persons were in the said journey. But except the complainant, no other persons travelled along with complainant came forward to file a complaint. In cross examination, PW1 complainant, deposed that the complaint was filed for himself and for and on behalf of other affected persons. Nowhere in the complaint is it mentioned the names of affected persons and their grievances. No authorisation letter was seen produced by PW1. It was further deposed by PW1 that the affected persons were made witness in the complaint and submission by the complainant is that complaint is filed under the label of Citizens' Protection Forum. Further it was deposed by the complainant that his dresses and currency notes worth Rs. 1,000/- were got spoiled due to the leakage of rain water and complainant fell ill. Other persons who were in seats Nos. 5,6 & 7 were also affected by the leakage of rain water. Suggestion by opposite parties was that there was no leakage as alleged in the complaint. PW2 deposed that he was, one of the co-passengers of this complainant. It is pertinent to note that PW2 did not lodge any complaint in this regard. Ext.P1 is the photocopy of the journey cum reservation ticket. Ext.P2 is the handwritten slip showing the bogie No.S2 and seat No.4. DW1 deposed that he had carried out maintenance and other service of the Train No.2625. DW1 further deposed that there was no damage in the alleged coach. After checking the coach, DW1 marked 'fit condition' in the said coach S2. The said S2 coach was in continuous service even after the alleged incidents. No problem is seen reported in S2 coach so far. On inspection no leakage was found by DW1. PW2 is not an independent witness. No other independent witnesses were seen examined by the complainant. No commission was taken by the complainant to prove the allegation in the complaint. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find that complainant has not succeeded to establish any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence complaint deserves to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.<br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No.95/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I.Complainants' witness:<br /> PW1 : Krishnan Nair<br /> PW2 : Thankappan Nair<br /> II.Complainants documents:<br /> P1 : Photocopy of train ticket No.51942330 dt. 13..09..2003<br /> P2 : True copy of train ticket No.51942330 dt. 13..09..2003 and slip indicating complainant's name and train No.2625 <br /> P3 : Photocopy of slip indicating the complainant's name and Train No.2625<br /> <br /> III.Opposite party's witness: <br /> <br /> DW1 : E. Manikantan<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite party's documents: N I L<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br />