KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.491/10 JUDGMENT DATED 27.9.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER The General Manager, South Western Railway, Club Road, Hubli, Bangalore. -- APPELLANT (By Adv.S.Renganathan) Vs. 1. T.A.Shahul Hameed, Thattuparambil, Thuravoor P.O, Cherthala, Alappuzha. 2. Kawolath Beevi, -do- -do- 3. Sunil Babu -do- -do- 4. Latheef, Sara Nivas, -- RESPONDENTS Thuravoor P.O, Cherthala, Alappuzha. 5. Mohammed Nishad -do- -do- 6. Aneesha -do- -do- 7. Raheema, ANK.Manzil, Thuravoor P.O, Cherthala, Alappuzha. 8. Rukiya Beevi, Nizzar Bhavan, Kuthiyathodu, Cherthala, Alappuzha. 9. Mohammed Nizzar -do- -do- 10. Shayda -do- -do- JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The order dated 31.1.10 in CC.8/10 of CDRF, Alappuzha is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. By the impugned order the appellant is under direction to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs to each complainant. 2. The case of the complainants before the Forum below was that they were traveling from Bangalore to Ernakulam by the Super fast Train No. 2684 in coach No.S.12 along with their family on 14.1.08 and that during the journey even a single drop of water was available in the toilets of their coach and that even though they had contacted the TTR and informed the matter of the non availability of the water in the toilets nothing was done by the TTR or the railway authorities and they had to suffer great difficulties through out the journey. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed seeking compensation and costs for the mental agony, uneasiness and other difficulties suffered by the complainants. 3. Though notice was issued and received by the opposite party he did not enter appearance or contest the matter. The Forum below passed the order setting the opposite party exparte. 4. The evidence consisted of the proof affidavit filed by the complainants and Exts.A1 to A5. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted before us that the order of the Forum below was without giving any opportunity to the opposite party to adduce evidence and contest the matter. He has submitted before us that in fact water was made available in the compartment on 14.1.08 and the fact could be proved by the work sheet produced along with the appeal. It is also contended that the opposite party had provided water in the compartment and the complainants had approached the Forum below with unclean hands. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing of the order, we find that the complainants had approached the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not providing water facility in the toilets in the compartment in which they were traveling on 14.1.08 from Bangalore to Ernakulam. The complainants had filed affidavits and in support of their contentions they had produced documents, which are marked as Exts.A1 to A5. It is seen that by Ext.A5 letter the opposite party had punished the contractor for not filling water in the coaches of the said train and had imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- which was realized from the contractor. In the appeal memorandum, the appellant has submitted that they had provided water, which could be evidenced as per the worksheet produced along with the appeal memorandum. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that though notice was received, the opposite party failed in contesting the matter by adducing proper evidence. It is to be further found that the plight of the complainants, who had the same grievances, can only be imagined if there was no water in the toilet when they had to travel for a considerable distance from Bangalore to Ernakulam. The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is much evident in the light of the fact that they did not even care to contest the matter before the forum by producing a copy of the worksheet which is produced before this Commission. The appellant cannot say that they had supplied water in the compartment and that they had committed no deficiency in service. On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances we feel that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 7. The appellant has also attacked the amount of compensation awarded by the forum below. The Forum below had awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation and 2,000/- as costs to each of the complainants. Considering the gravity of the negligence shown by the opposite party we do not feel that the amount is on the higher side. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the findings and conclusions of the forum below. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Thereby the order of the forum below in CC.8/10 of CDRF, Alappuzha is confirmed. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -PRESIDENT s/L | 
