Date of filing : 16-04-2012
Date of order : 29-06-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.222/2011
Dated this, the 29th day of June 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
V.K.Abdulla, } Complainant
S/o.Imbichi Moideen,
R/at M.P.P. IV-2,
Hill Block, CPCRI Quarters,
Kudlu Village and Po.
Kasaragod.Dt. 671124.
(Adv.Rajagopala.A, Kasaragod)
The Divisional Manager, } Opposite party
Southern Railway,
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office,
Palghat, 678124.
(In Person)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
The salient facts necessary to settle this dispute are stated hereunder.
Complainant with his wife Aishath Suhara boarded in A/C-3 coach of Malabar Express on 27-1-2011 from Kottayam to Kasaragod with reserved tickets. But the beddings supplied by the opposite party was infected with bed bugs and consequent to the same, complainant and his wife suffered serious health hazards and they were not able to sleep. Due to the complication developed due to sleeplessness to his wife, complainant break their journey at Thalassery to take his wife to a near by hospital for treatment. He lodged a complaint against the supply of bug infected bedding before the Station Master Thalassery. But in the said complainant and also to the notice issued subsequently no action were taken by opposite party. Hence the complaint claiming compensation and costs.
2. According to opposite party complaint is not maintainable since Railway Claims Tribunal is functioning at Ernakulam exclusively for exercising jurisdiction for delaing with all claims against the Railways U/s 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. The passengers travelling in A/C coaches are provided with bedding free of cost and they are machine washed, dried and iron pressed before supplying to the passengers in packets. Hence there is no room for bed bugs in the bedding. Neither the complainant nor his wife complained to the TTE who was in charge of the said A/C 3 tier coach or to the attendant who had supplied the beddings about the bug affected bedding. Complainant also not complained about the sleeplessness of his wife to the TTE. Had the complainant made complaints then his wife could have been treated in the Railway Health Centres at Shoranur, Kozhikode, Kannur and Mangalore in this area. Therefore statement of complainant is not true. Further no other passengers travelled in the same coach on the same day had complained about the bed rolls or bed bugs. The emergency for terminating the journey at Thalassery is also not understood. The coaches are subjected to systemic disinfection through an authorized agency M/s Pest control India Limited. The coaches in which the complainant and his wife traveled was subjected to immediate inspection by the competent authority on it’s arrival at Mangalore Station and it revealed that there was no bed bugs either in the beddings provided or in the sleeping berths provided to the complainant and his wife. The sleeplessness may be attributable to other reasons. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. Exts A1 to A6 marked. On the side of opposite party DW1 to DW3 examined. Both sides heard. Documents perused.
4. The points arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3. What is the order as to relief & costs.
5. Issue No.1. The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable, since a Railway Claims Tribunal is functioning in Ernakulam and therefore complainant shall approach the said Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.
6. The said contention is not acceptable. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in RP No. 864/2006 dated 29-11-2007 of Smt. Vinaya Vilas Sawant V Union of India. In which National Commission has held that a complaint is maintainable before the Forum constituted under CP Act against the deficiency in Services of the Railway. Again relying on this judgment, Hon’ble National Commission in RP No.1725/2009 dt. 5-5-2011 in the case of Union of India & Anr. V. Savitaben Sumanbhai Patel & Ors has held that Sec 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides an additional remedy to the Consumer and as such the Consumer Fora are competent to entertain claim covered under the relevant section of the Railways Act 1987/Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987.
7. In view of the above judgments the issue No.1 is found against opposite party and we hold that complaint is maintainable before the Forum.
8. Issue No.2.
The specific case of the complainant is that due to the bed bugs attack on the night of their journey his wife has suffered serious health hazards and were not able to sleep. As a result they have to break the journey at Thalassery to take her for medical aid. Ext.A2 is the copy of the complaint lodged by him in the prescribed format in the
Thalassery Railway Station and 28-01-2011 at 6.30am. In Ext.A2 it is specifically mentioned by him that he was a traveler along with his wife from Kottayam to Kasaragod by Malabar Express and the beddings supplied to AC-3 coach were infested with bed hugs and they were not able to sleep and he has to break the journey at Thalassery to take his wife to hospital as she developed some complication due to sleepless night.
9. The complainant lodged his complaint within 15 minutes after the train reached at Thalssery station. Ext.A2 cannot be considered as a complaint submitted with an after thought to make future claims. The other passengers did not complain does not mean that complainant is telling falsehood. It is not the case of complainant that the entire coach was infested with bed bugs. Further the feeling of comfortness may depend upon person to person.
10. Though opposite party in their version has stated that the coaches are subjected to regular disinfection from their evidence is not clear on which date the coach was last infested by the disinfecting agency. Moreover it is the case of complainant that the beddings supplied were infested with bed bugs. So the disinfection of sleeping berths and coaches has nothing to do with the attack of bed bugs from the bedding materials supplied.
11. The opposite parties have no case that the beddings supplied to the complainant and his wife were subjected to any periodical checking and disinfection.
12. It is a pestering problem that Indian Railway is not able to put a lid on the bed bugs which are giving sleepless nights to passengers. The most commenly infested places are mattresses, curtains hanged in the A/C coaches, beddings etc due to the poor maintenance and unwashing after each trip.
13. The statement of DW2 & DW3 that nobody complained them about the bed bugs on 28-01-2011 who were in charge of such coaches does not mean that the complainant and his wife did not suffer on that day.
14. On considering the entire evidence and appreciation of facts and circumstances it is evident that complainant and his wife were constrained to break their journey at Thalassery on 28-01-2011 due to the complications developed to complainant’s wife due to sleeplessness because of the attack of bed bugs in the mattresses supplied to them.
15. The supply of bedding materials infested with bed bugs is a serious deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and therefore they are liable to compensate the complainant.
16. Reliefs& costs
The claim of the complainant is `2000/- towards the travel fare from Thalassery to Kasaragod and `25,000/- as compensation for the loss and hardships and `1000/- towards the cost of correspondence with cost of the proceedings.
17. But the complainant did not produce any medical evidence regarding the health condition of his wife when they said to have consulted the doctors at Thalassery. He also did not submit any medical evidence to prove that bed bugs attack was the reason for his wife’s sleeplessness and the resultant complications. In the said circumstances we are not inclined to allow his claim in toto. But it is a fact that the wife of the complainant could not sleep on the night of their journey due to attack of bed bugs.
Therefore the complaint is allowed on part and opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of `10,000/-(including the travelling cost from Thalassery to Kasaragod) with a cost of `3000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Had the opposite party got a contention that there is other agency contracted for disinfecting the beddings and mattresses supplied to the passengers, then they can recover the said amount from them through appropriate proceedings after paying the amount to the complainant.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1 Photocopy of IRCTCs e-Ticketing Service Electronic Reservation Slip.
A2.201-2011 copy of complaint.
A3.9-3-2011 copy of reply.
A4. 5-4-2011 letter sent by complainant to OP
A5. 8-7-11 reply issued by OP to complainant
A6. 6-9-2011 News paper Malayala manorama.
DW1, Padmadas.C.
DW2. Thomas Mathew.
DW3.P.P.Vijayakumar.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
