Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/71/2015

M/s.Devadas - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Officer, The Claim Department Southern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Madhuprakash-com

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

                                                                    Complaint presented on:  17.04.2015

                                                                        Order pronounced on:  21.07.2017

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

       2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,    PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER – I

FRIDAY THE 21^st DAY OF JULY 2017

C.C.NO.71/2015

 

Mr. Devadas,

S/o Mr.E.N.Padmanabhan,

Xandu, 1059, 10^th Street,

Poompuhar Nagar,

Kolathur,

Chennai – 600 099.

                                                                                 ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The Authorized Officer,

The Claims Department,

Southern Railway,

Chennai Central Railways Department,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager

(Public Grievances)

Chennai Division,

Southern Railway,

Chennai – 600 003.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                    : 28.04.2015

Counsel for Complainant                         : Mr.M.Madhu Prakash,  

                                                                       Mrs.K.Nithiyavathi,

                                                                       Mr.P.S.Padmakumar

 

Counsel for   Opposite Parties                    : Mr.N.R.Narayanen,

                                                                  A.P.Sathyamoorthy.

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to replace samsonite suit case and to pay compensation for the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party and for mental agony caused to him with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant booked 3 tickets in Chennai Express bearing Train No.16042 to travel from Alleppey to Chennai in AC 2 tier on 12.04.2014. They travelled as scheduled with their luggage and the train arrived on 13.04.2014 at Chennai Central Railway Station. The Complainant found that his Samsonite suitcase was cut opened in the bottom for almost 6 inches because of the rat bite in the train. The said suit case was purchased by the Complainant at a cost of Rs.12,600/- recently. Due to non maintenance of the train compartments the rat caused damages to the Complainant’s suitcase.

          2. The Complainant explained to the Station Master at Chennai Central Station and explained the issue and he advised the Complainant to send a Complaint to the claim department along with a photo of the damaged suitcase. Accordingly the Complainant also sent a Complaint on 14.04.2014 and thereafter again he sent Complaints by way of e-mail to the 2^nd Opposite Party. However no steps were taken by the Opposite Party to settle the issue. The non maintenance of the compartments and the rat bitten the suitcase is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to replace and to pay compensation for the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties and compensation for mental agony caused to him with cost of the Complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties admits that the Complainant booked tickets and travelled from Alleppey to Chennai. The assumption of the Complainant, that the rat bite was due to non maintenance of coaches is denied. The Complainant overlooked the possibility of suitcase damaged earlier itself due to other causes like handling, manufacture defects etc. The Complainant straight away jumped to the conclusion that the rat bite during journey which caused damage of the suitcase of the Complainant and blamed the railway is not acceptable. Before travel the train completely checked at the Basin Bridge Depot and under gone primary glue pads and cages in all the coaches for trapping rats. No rat was trapped in the train on 11.04.2013, thereby indicating all the coaches including the two tiers AC were free of any rat menace. As per section of 100 of the Railway Act the Railway Act administration shall not be responsible for the loss of destruction, damage and non delivery of any luggage. Therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant and two others have travelled from Alleppey to Chennai Central on 12.04.2014 under Ex.A1 ticket and reached Chennai Central Station on 13.04.2014 morning with their luggage.

          6. The case of the Complainant is that on reaching Chennai, while they detrained the luggage and he found that his Samsonite suitcase was cut due to rat bite for 6 inches at the bottom and that was happened due to non maintenance of the coaches by the Opposite Parties  and the Complainant caused Ex.A2  notice to the 1^st Opposite Party about the damages along with Ex.A3 photo showing the damaged suitcase and there was no reply from him and thereafter the Complainant caused Ex.A5, Ex.A6 & Ex.A8 by way of e-mail letter  and Ex.A7 notice caused to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party gave Ex.A9 e-mail reply and however even after issuance of Ex.A10 legal notice to the Opposite Parties they did not come forward to settle the issue and hence the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service.

          7. The Opposite Party would contend that they have properly maintained the coaches and before departure of the train on 11.04.2013 the coaches under gone primary maintenance at Basin Bridge Depot and the Complainant suitcase should have damaged due to other causes like handling, manufacturing defect etc and however the Complainant on wrong assumption would said that the rat bite   caused damage suitcase is not at all acceptable and prays for dismissal.

          8. The Complainant sent Ex.A3 photograph of the damaged suitcase to the 1^st Opposite Party along with Ex.A2 notice. The Complainant categorically stated due to rat bite there was cut of 6 inches in the suitcase. It is not the case of the Opposite Parties that there was no rat running in the train at all. The 2^nd Opposite Party gave Ex.A9 reply that “the superior in charge of pest control has been advised to monitor the coach to control rat menace” and inconvenience caused is deeply regretted. The reply of the 2^nd Opposite Party irresistibly leads to the conclusion that there was rat menace persists in the train. Therefore in such circumstances   photo of suit case shows cut for 6 inches and the rat menace exists in the train proved by the Complainant and his Samsonite suitcase was damaged due to rat bite is accepted.

9. Further, the Opposite Parties nowhere stated that when lastly the pest control maintenance was taken in the coaches. The pest control should have been periodically done to curb the rat menace. There is no evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties that lastly when the pest control maintenance was taken in the coaches of that train.   Therefore in such circumstances stated above, we hold that the Complainant’s suitcase was damaged due to rat bite while travelling in the Opposite Parties train has been proved and hence, it is held that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service.

10. POINT NO:2

          The Complainant case is that he has purchased the suitcase for Rs.12,350/-. The Ex.A4 price tag proves the same. The Complainant suffered with mental agony due to negligent maintenance of the train and thereby his suitcase was damaged is accepted. However, the act of the Opposite Parties failed to maintain the coaches  is an unfair trade practice. The Complainant prayed to replace the suitcase. However it would be appropriate to order the Opposite Parties to pay the cost of the suitcase of Rs.12,350/- would be the appropriate relief, instead of  ordering for replacing of the suitcase. Further the Opposite Parties can also be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the other relief is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.12,350/- (Rupees twelve thousand three hundred and  fifty only) towards  the cost of the suit case to the Complainant and also to pay  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten  thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the other relief is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st day of July 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 20.03.2014                   Train Ticket

Ex.A2 dated 14.04.2014                   Private Notice Caused to the Claim Department

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Photograph of the Damaged Suitcase

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Price tag of the Damaged Suitcase

Ex.A5 dated 27.10.2014                   E-mail Caused to the 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A6 dated 29.10.2014                   E-mail caused to the 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A7 dated 29.10.2014                   Private Notice caused to the 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A8 dated 10.12.2014                   E-mail caused to the 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A9 dated 10.12.2014                   E-mail from 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A10 dated 18.03.2015                 Legal Notice caused to the Opposite Parties along

                                                   with the Acknowledgement Cards

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      ……. NIL …….

 

 

 

                                     

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT