D.o.F: 15/05/2010 D.o.O:12/11/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.112/10 Dated this, the 12th day of November 2010. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER Rajeev Kumar P , S/o C.P.Krishnan, R/at Swapnalayam,Kavvai, : Complainant Hosdurg,Kahangad Po,Kasaragod (Adv.N Ganaraj .K,Hosdurg) - The Divisional Commercial Manager,
Southers Railway Palakkad : Opposite parties 2. The Station Master, Kanhangad Railway Station. 3. Senior D ivisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Trivandrum. (Adv.P.Narayanan Nair, Kasaragod) ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant is a physically challenged person employed in District Panchayath office of Kasaragod. He is also an office bearer of All Kerala Association of Deaf. He reserved a train berth for his journey from Ernakulam to Kanhangad in Maveli Express on 14/2/2010. But he could not occupy the berth and seat reserved by him since the coach which is exclusively allotted for physically challenged person were already occupied by passengers having ordinary traveling tickets. Though he complained to the concerned TTE’s in –charge, they did not heed any attention to his complaint. As a result he suffered a lot and was constrained to travel by standing in the thickly filled coach. The traveling in train by standing has made further damage to left limb which is affected by polio. Though he made complaints to the authorities and through lawyer notice no reply is received . Hence the complaint claiming compensation. 2. Opposite parties filed version denying the incident as narrated by the complainant. According to them, complainant has not approached any of its employees for getting accommodation in any coach in 6604 Express on 14/2/2010. Had he been approached then he could have got reserved accommodation. It was very well available to him at Ernakulam . There was no over crowding in the coach where he had been reserved his berth. There was no complaints regarding over crowding in that berth at all. If the allegations of the complainant is true then there would have other complainants from other reserved passengers traveling in the same coach. Moreover, he could have contacted by RPF staff available in the platform or station Master or even contacted the RAIL ALERT mobile number available to passengers through which immediate police assistance is made available. The complainant failed to entrain from correct station or in the correct coach and is presenting a cooked up story to suit his monetary intention. The complainant did not travel by standing and thereby did not suffer any pain on limbs. The compensation claimed by the complainant is with malafide intention with a view to gain monetary benefit and without any basis . The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his claim. Exts.A1 to A5 marked. No oral evidence is adduced by opposite party and no documents were also produced. 4. The points arises for consideration are 1. Whether the complainant has denied his reserved berth? 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 3. If so, what order as to relief and costs? 5.. For the sake of brevity all the points are discussed together. The grievance of the complainant is that he booked berths together with his escort in 6604 Maveli Express on 14/2/2010 with the ticket bearing PNR No.431-4371010. Ext.A1 is the journey cum reservation ticket for the journey Ernakulam Jn. To Kanhangad having a distance of 345Kms. The scheduled departure time is 23.35 ie 11.35 PM on 14/2/2010 and it shall reach Kanhangad at the place of destination at 7.12 AM on the next day 15/2/2010 . So someone books a berth in a ticket may expect that he could sleep in the train through out the night. But on the contrary when some one denies the berth without any fault of his, then no doubt he will be put under severe mental strain and agony. It will be doubled when it happenes to a physically challenged person. Ext.A1 does not contain any initials of TTE or any other officials of railway. Had he been traveled in the reserved coach it should have contain the initials of TTE. This would make it further clear that the complainant was left unattended by the TTE. 6. It is unimaginable that only for the purpose of filing a complaint the complainant and his escort willfully abstained from the proposed journey after booking the ticket further no documents such as reservation chart is produced by the opposite party to prove that the booked berth is occupied by the complainant and his escort Pavithran. The non production of the TTE’s reservation chart itself is fatal to the case of the opposite parties that the SL I coach which is exclusively reserved for physically disabled person were not over crowded. The contention of opposite parties that the complainant alone had to face all the alleged difficulties and it is beyond any logic or reason is also not acceptable in the absence of the production of reservation chart. The contention that the complainant also did not seek the aid of RPF is also not acceptable since during cross examination complainant deposed that no RPF persons were found at that time. On further enquiry made into the matter it is came to know that the coaches which are reserved for physically disabled person is an isolated one without a vestibule to the adjacent coaches and the said coach is usually manned by guard of the train and not by any TTEs: . The guards are not provided with any chart of reserved passengers. So they will be helpless even if a complaint is received regarding unauthorized occupation of the disabled persons reserved berths. So when a train is stopped in a station for a few minutes no guard will get time to attend and manage the affairs of coach for the disabled and the travelers. The suffering of a disabled person who entered in a coach for the disabled will be further doubled when the train starts to run since the coach is an isolated one without manned by anybody. That apart in the absence of a vestibule to pass to the next coach the passengers sufferings will be further aggravated if they faces any difficulties. 7. In order to solve this problem it would be better to remove the coach for the disabled and instead of that particular number of berths(preferably 2 to 4 lower berths) of every coach shall be reserved for physically challenged persons . So that they will get attention of the TTE’s also. Moreover in the absence of physically handicapped passengers those specially reserved berths can be allotted to other passengers . So that it need not kept vacant. 8. It is a fact that inspite of having reserved tickets, the complainant could not get reserved berths through out journey or at least upto Shornur even if the contention of the learned counsel for opposite parties that in Ext.A3 lawyer notice it is stated that complainant stood in the journey more than Shornur is admitted. The legitimate inference can be drawn that physically challenged complainant suffered mental and physical pain. No one heed any attention to his request. He constrained to run from post to pillar within the few minutes with his disabled body for the occupying his confirmed berth and seat with no avail when the train halted in Ernakulam town station. 9. Though the fact was denied by the opposite parties but they failed to controvert the contention of complainant by producing ample evidence who is under an obligation to make the journey comfortable and trouble free. 10. Any kind of default, imperfection, short coming, inadequacy in quality, nature and manner of service which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service amounts to deficiency in service and entitles the consumer to claim compensation as to the loss or injury which includes mental injury. Considering the physical condition, the late night journey by standing and the physical mental sufferings the complainant had undergone,. We are of the view that the complainant is entitled for ` 10,000/- as compensation . The complaint is therefore allowed and opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay `10,000/- as compensation to the complainant together with a cost of ` 2000/- . Time for compliance of this order is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Opposite parties are also directed to revise the present unscientific method of allotment of reservation to physically challenged persons in a coach, which is left unattended and isolated. Exts: A1-journey cum reservation ticket A2-copy of concession of the certificate A3-22/2/10- copy of lawyer notice A4-postal acknowledgment cards PW1-Rajeevkumar.P- complainant Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER PRESIDENT /Forwarded by Order/ eva SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT | 
