KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 506/2018
JUDGMENT DATED: 16.08.2019
(Against the Order in C.C. 246/2016 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT :
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Baby Jaya. S, Kizhakkekolezhathu, Velorvattom, CMJ, Cherthala.
(Party in person)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- The Divisional Manager, Railway Divisional Office, Trivandrum.
- General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003.
- The Station Master, Varkala Railway Station, Varkala.
(By Adv. S. Renganathan)
JUDGMENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 246/2016 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint was filed for getting compensation in respect of an inhuman incident happened to the complainant at Varkala Railway Station. The contractor of the Varkala railway station refused the complainant to use the urinals. The matter was also intimated to the station master and he also misbehaved. The entire action of the contractor and station master had caused much hardship and mental agony to the complainant. So the complainant claims Rs. 40,000/- towards compensation.
2. The respondents denied the claim of the complainant and contended that there is no deficiency of service and the complaint is not maintainable. After taking evidence the complaint is dismissed by the Forum. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2018 the appeal is filed.
3. Evidence in the case consisted of oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P5 marked on her side.
4. In the appeal the appellant stated that the order passed by the forum is not in accordance with facts. The finding of the Forum is that the appellant was in the station after 5 P.M is untenable. The Forum should have seen that the complainant was a passenger and she is entitled to use the urinal of the station. The Forum has failed to notice that the opposite parties had admitted the dereliction of duties and initiated action against the contractor and the station master. The Forum exceeds their jurisdiction by disallowing the complaint on the ground that disciplinary proceedings had initiated against the contractor and the station master. She further added that no sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant to prove her case. So the appellant prayed for setting aside the Order passed by the District forum.
5. In this case the opposite parties admitted that an enquiry was conducted regarding this incident and the concerned licensee of pay & use toilet at Varkala has been imposed with a heavy penalty for the unhelpful attitude towards the complainant. They had also taken action against the station master in refusing to provide proper guidance and help to a valued customer. Ext. P3 produced by the complainant shows that railway authorities had taken action against the contractor and the station master concerned is under disciplinary proceedings. The finding of the District Forum is that the opposite parties had taken appropriate action against the persons who caused inconvenience to the complainant long before filing the complaint. Hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. Therefore the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
6. We perused the entire documents, pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties. The opposite parties admitted the incident and they had taken action against the contractor who is the authorized person of pay and use toilet at Varkala and against the Station Master. From these facts we can confirm that that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. The opposite parties have some responsibility towards the passengers. They should provide proper facilities for primary needs like the facility for urinals etc.
7. The complainant/appellant definitely suffered some inconvenience and mental agony, especially as a woman. In this circumstance we find that it is reasonable to allow compensation for her sufferings. The opposite parties admitted that they have imposed heavy penalty against the contractor. From this statement we confirm that the opposite parties have the controlling power over the acts of the contractor. Those actions of the opposite parties are not sufficient for the redressal of the grievances of the complainant.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The respondents/opposite parties are liable to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the appellant/complainant. No order of costs. Opposite parties are directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order, otherwise the above amount shall carry 12% annual interest.
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
