BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 01/2010 Filed on 01.01.2010
Dated : 28.02.2011
Complainant:
M M M Abdul Kader, T.C 53/1380, Old Karakkamandapam, Nemom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-20.
Opposite parties :
The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat.
The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram-14.
(By adv. S. Renganathan)
This O.P having been heard on 03.02.2011, the Forum on 28.02.2011 delivered the following :
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
This complaint has been filed by a physically challenged person and his grievance is as follows: The complainant had booked two tickets PNR No. 431-0960059 including one for his escort, from Thiruvananthapuram to Payyannur by train No. 6629 (Malabar Express) on 26.09.2009 for journey on 26.09.2009 at 18:30 hours and performed the onward journey on the date scheduled. Similarly the complainant had booked the return ticket also PNR No. 411-0960143, for himself with escort to travel on 01.10.2009 in train No. 6603 (Maveli Express) on 26.09.2009 itself by paying Rs. 196/- for the tickets and the return tickets were confirmed in the SL1 Coach with berth numbers 2 & 4 through the opposite parties. The onward journey was eventless and normal. But the departure caused deficiency and injury. The Train No. 6603 (Maveli Express) is slated to leave Payyannur station at 19:30 hours on 01.10.2009. It is pertinent to note that the aforementioned ticket was confirmed in the SL1 coach with berth numbers 2 & 4. The complainant along with his escort reached the Payyannur Railway station at 17.30 hours on 01.10.2009 with their baggage. The complainant along with his escort had watched through out the length and breadth of the train while the train is on the wheels before halt by standing in the platform but the reserved bogie was not found. Accordingly the consumers were destined to travel by the said train without reservation, sans sleeper facility and proper accommodation on 01.10.2009. The opposite parties did not make alternate arrangement, which is the practice of the trade. Ultimately due to their urgent preoccupations this physically challenged complainant along with his sister escort had to reach Trivandrum without any accommodation and was subjected to injury, sufferings, undue hardships and loss. The complainant who was a physically challenged person had to travel in the standing position in spite of his disabilities that resulted in severe health problems to him. The opposite parties wilfully, deliberately and negligently handled the matter and the above act and omission on the part of the opposite parties is a negligence and deficiency in service actionable under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence this complaint for compensation and costs.
Opposite parties have filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the railway authorities as alleged. Due to some unforeseen circumstances and purely on technical reasons SL 1 (Second class cum luggage coach modified for disabled) coach could not be attached by the Formation on 01.10.2009 by T. No. 6603 Express. On such occasions the railway authorities re-allot berths for the passengers in other reserved coaches. The halting time of T. No. 6603 at Payyannur station is just 2 minutes. It is not possible for a physically challenged passenger to search for the coach running from one end to other covering 18 bogies, within a span of 2 minutes. Hence the allegation that he had watched throughout the length of the train is false and denied. Chief Reservation Supervisor at Mangalore had re-allotted the complainant and his escort with 2 berths in S 4 coach of the same i.e berth No. 57 & 58 during the course of charting. Alternative accommodation were assigned to the consumers as indicated. Their names have also found a place in the published reservation chart of S4 coach. This information of re-allocation was immediately conveyed to the station master, at Payyannur with instructions to inform passengers concerned through public address system. As such the station master at Payyannur had done his duty properly by making announcements several times before the arrival of the train calling them to meet the station master so as to inform about the re-allocation of berths and coach. If the complainant had enough time to search the coaches, definitely he should have heard the announcement of SMR/PAY regarding the re-allocation of the berths. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation as claimed, since there was absolutely no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of railway authorities.
Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P3 on his side. DW1 has been examined on behalf of the opposite parties. Opposite parties had no documentary evidence.
From the allegations raised, the points to be considered are :-
Whether the complainant who is a physically challenged person had to suffer as alleged in the complaint?
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
Reliefs and costs.
Points (i) to (iii):- It is an admitted fact that, due to unforeseen circumstances and due to technical reasons, SL-1 coach could not be attached in train No. 6603 on 01.10.2009. In such a circumstance, the aspect to be considered is, whether the complainant who had been allotted confirmed berth in the said coach was provided with alternative accommodation or not. The complainant has pleaded that he had boarded in one of the reservation compartment after informing the TTE Mr. Jambal Meena in bogie No. 7 & 8 but he refused to permit them saying that no message from DCM Commercial section on the cancellation of the bogie reserved for the physically challenged person has been received by him. Complainant has further pleaded that the complainant was informed over phone then and there by the commercial control section, Trivandrum that alternate arrangements are the sole responsibility of the TTE to whom the complainant had access and the TTE had to make alternate arrangement and that accordingly TTE in bogie No. 6 misbehaved to the complainant directing to search the reserved bogie in the front or the rear end of the train and that the TTE denied accommodation to the complainant and escort who were holding confirmed ticket. Further the complainant has pleaded that due to negligence of TTE, he failed to locate complainant’s name in any chart.
The opposite parties in their version has contended that the Travelling Ticket Examiner concerned of S4, S5 and S6 coaches from Mangalore to Kannur was searching for the complainant, as in the chart it was mentioned that the passenger is HP (Handicapped). But the TTE could not locate him. He had handed over the chart of S4 coach to TTE who took over charge at Kannur duly making endorsement as ’NJ’ (Not Joined) against their names. The TTE concerned waited for them upto Calicut and after the train left Calicut Station as the complainant and his escort never reported, those berths i.e; 57 & 58 in S-4 coach were re-allotted to passengers in Reservation Against Cancellation (RAC) No. 47 & 55 respectively duly making endorsements against their names in RAC list as well as against the names of the complainant and his escort. The complainant contacted the TTE of S4 coach at Tirur (TIR) i.e; after a lapse of 47 minutes from Calicut. At TIR they could not even be accommodated in any of the other coaches due to non-availability of vacant berths however the TTE had requested one of the passengers in Berth No. 7 (side lower) at least to make them sit and travel. The passenger obliged and welcomed the complainants to share his seat. The contrary allegations in para 7 & 8 are false and denied. It is evident that the complainant had boarded the train and if the complainant had been given correct information regarding his alternate arrangement by the TTE in the bogie which was boarded by him, the difficulties suffered by the complainant could have been avoided. It is a fact that the TTE will be provided with the details of the passengers list of the train concerned. Then why the TTE in bogie No. 6, did not give details regarding the complainant’s berth have not been explained by the opposite parties. If at all any alternate arrangements had been made, then it would definitely find a place in the list of passengers maintained by all the TTEs. But from the facts and circumstance of the case it could be concluded that, such details were not with all the TTEs in the said train.
From the above discussions we are of the view that the complainant has been unnecessarily made to suffer due to the deficient act of the opposite parties for which the complainant, who is a physically challenged person, has to be compensated. We find that the complainant is entitled for a compensation and costs of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and costs within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order.
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.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28th day of February 2011.
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 01/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS :
PW1 - M M M Abdul Kader
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Ticket with notings by the two TTE’s onwards
P2 - COINPAR notice dated 06.10.2009
P3 - Reply notice received from the opposite parties dated
01.12.2009.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS :
DW1 - Sivanaik
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
PRESIDENT
jb
