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. 295/2010 Filed on 16.09.2010
Dated : 29.07.2011
Complainant :
M. Abdul Wahab, T.C 6/1039 (4), Padayani Road, Manchadimoodu, Vattiyoorkavu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-13.
(Appeared in person)
Opposite parties :
The Divisional Railway Manager, Thiruvananthapuram Railway Division, Southern Railway Divisional Office, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-14.
The Additional General Manager and Director-Public Grievances, Southern Railways, Southern Railways Head Quarters Office, Park Town, Chennai- 600 003.
(By adv. S. Renganathan)
This O.P having been heard on 18.06.2011, the Forum on 29.07.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
The grievance of the complainant as pleaded in the complaint are as follows: The complainant had booked ticket for his wife and children to travel from Ernakulam Junction South to Thiruvananthapuram for travelling on 26.07.2010. When they reached Ernakulam Junction they were shocked to know that the train was running indefinitely behind the schedule. With two children and heavy luggage she managed to reach Ernakulam Town (North) with lot of difficulties. She purchased unreserved sleeper class ticket and travelled in train number 7230 (Sabari Express) and reached Trivandrum at 7.00 pm with lot of difficulty. The complainant enquired at the information counter at Thiruvananthapuram Central to cancel the reserved train ticket which was running late. He was directed to one person or the other and no attempt was made from the part of the opposite parties to help the complainant to cancel his ticket. Though the complainant had sent letters to the opposite parties regarding the same neither any action against the erring staff was taken nor the complete ticket fare was refunded. Hence this complaint has been filed for the harassment and refusal of the Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway Station reservation staff to cancel the reserved ticket of a late running train at Thiruvananthapuram Junction on 26th July 2010 and for the tremendous mental agony and hardship caused by their higher officials by not responding to the complainant's complaints.
Opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed their version contending as follows: This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the cause of action has originated at Ernakulam. These opposite parties do issue railway tickets to avail the service but delay in train service due to unforeseen and unavoidable reasons is beyond the control of the opposite parties. When trains are delayed for more than 3 hours, due to any reason, the passenger is eligible to obtain full refund at his original journey commencing station or at the station where the ticket is taken. That the complainant's wife could have obtained a full refund of train fare at Ernakulam itself. Even if she did not want to spare her time in the queue, she could have obtained a Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) from the information centre available at Ernakulam junction station itself and obtained a refund with that certificate later. If she was unaware of this rule, she could have enquired about the same at the information centre at Ernakulam Junction. It is submitted that refund rules are published in the Public Time Table of Southern Railway and made available to the passengers. Ignorance of rules is not an excuse and the burden remains on the passengers to be aware of the rules in force. That there were other four trains available from Ernakulam Junction (South) station itself, and the complainant's wife could have travelled in that train up to her destination, Trivandrum Central, without going to Ernakulam town. This facility could have been availed by the passenger. It is submitted that the complainant was requested to produce his original ticket vide this office letter vide number C/508/P/TVC/26 dated 07.09.2010 and a reminder was sent to him on 21.10.2010. The information regarding late running of this train was available at all information centres including that of Ernakulam where the wife of the complainant was claimed to be available. As such the failure of the complainant and his wife to get this information could not be attributed to Railways. The allegation against the lady counter staff and supervisor in charge are made with malafide intention and that the staff had guided her to get a ticket deposit receipt from Information Centre, Thiruvananthapuram in order to get refund since the ticket possessed by her could not be refunded at Trivandrum Central.
Complainant has filed affidavit and has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P12(a). Opposite parties had no evidence.
The points to be considered are
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?
Points (i) & (ii):- The allegation of the complainant is that, when his wife and children reached at Ernakulam junction (south), they came to know that the train was running late. So his wife along with 2 children had to rush to Ernakulam Town (North) and purchased unreserved sleeper class ticket and reached Trivandrum at 7 p.m with lot of difficulty. That when his family reached at Trivandrum station, the complainant went to the reservation centre for cancelling the ticket but he had to wait in the big queue at enquiry counter and the lady staff at the counter directed him to the supervisor-in-charge who tranquilly replied that the ticket should have been cancelled at Ernakulam, the origin station and that the said official never made any attempt to help him in cancelling the ticket. The pleading of the complainant is that no sane person who comes to know about the late running of the train supposed to travel will take and fill the cancellation form, stand in the big queue, enquire and then cancel the ticket carrying the luggage and young children but will try to catch another train and reach the destination as early as possible. According to the contention taken out by opposite parties in their version it has been stated that rules are made for a larger public cause and it could not be twisted for the individual convenience or for petty consideration. That the relevant rule stipulates that such a refund can be made from the station where ticket is generated. That if the complainant did not want to spare her time in the queue she could have obtained a Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) from the information centre available at Ernakulam Junction station itself and obtained a refund with that certificate later. The opposite parties have further contended that it is the negligence and careless attitude of the passenger that had caused all the alleged worries and not because of any lacunae in the services of the opposite parties. It has been further contended that the supervisor-in-charge had explained the rules to the complainant and guided him to get a ticket deposit receipt and the complainant had failed to get a TDR from Trivandrum Central Station when he was advised to do so.
The opposite parties have taken out a contention that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the tickets were purchased and payment were made by the complainant at Ernakulam. As per the tickets it can be seen that the ticket is to travel from Ernakulam to Trivandrum. Hence part of the cause of action having been arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum, we find that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
We have heard both parties. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had not surrendered the unused ticket at Ernakulam railway station. The opposite parties have in detail specified regarding the TDR and the rule that the complainant's wife should have obtained a full refund of train fare at Ernakulam station itself. But as per Ext. P5, Refund of Rules, produced by the complainant, it has been specified that in the case of tickets issued for travel from some other stations, refunds shall be admissible at the ticket issuing station provided that the ticket is surrendered before the schedule departure of the train from the station from where the ticket is valid. Further under the head “Refund due to late running of trains” it has been mentioned that full refund will be permitted even after the departure of train in the event of train running more than 3 hours late and that the time limits will be up to 3 hours if the distance of the ticket is up to 200 kms, up to 6 hours if the distance of the ticket is 201-500 kms and up to 12 hours after the departure of the train if the distance of the ticket is more than 500 kms.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the late running of the train which is beyond the control of the opposite parties has caused much difficulties to the complainant's family. But the act of the opposite parties in not refunding the ticket fare at Trivandrum is not justifiable. Ext. P4 which is the copy of the cancellation requisition form reveals that the complainant had requested for refund on 26.07.2010 at 7.10 pm. Ext. P6 has been issued to the Additional General Manager & Director Public Grievances on 27.07.2010 i.e; on the very next day detailing the entire incident. As per Ext. P6 also, the complainant has brought to the notice of the opposite party that he was told by the railway staff that the ticket could not be cancelled at Trivandrum and it should have been cancelled at the origin station. But no reply is seen sent by the opposite parties to the same. Complainant has produced copies of reminder also for which also no reply has been sent by the opposite parties. The agony and difficulty of a female passenger travelling with her 2 small children as pleaded in the complaint has also to be looked into. Considering all the above, we hereby allow the complaint. The complainant is found entitled for refund of Rs. 262/- along with a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall refund Rs. 262/- along with a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9%.
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 29th day of July 2011.
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 295/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - M. Abdul Wahab
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of railway ticket dated 16.07.2010
P2 - Copy of train running information
P3 - Copy of railway ticket dated 26.07.2010
P4 - Copy of cancellation requisition form.
P5 - Copy of Refund Rules.
P6 - Copy of letter dated 27.07.2010 issued by the complainant
P7 - Copy of postal receipts.
P8 - Copy of the letter dated 29.07.2010 issued by complainant
P9 - Copy of letter dated 09.08.2010 issued by complainant
P10 - Copy of postal receipts.
P11 - Copy of the movement particulars of EL0143323341N
P12 - Copy of letter dated 20.10.2010 addressed to complainant
P12(a)- Copy of the postal cover addressed to the complainant.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
