DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of May 2013
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt.Preetha.G. Nair, Member Date of filing: 27/02/2013
(C.C.No.47/2013)
G.R.Manoj Kumar
S/o.G.Raju
15/393 Parakkal House
Palayapetta
Palakkad. - Complainant
(By Adv.V.Jayadevanarayanan)
V/s
1.The Divisional Railway Manager
Southern Railway Chennai Division
Chennai – 600 003
2.The Divisional Railway Manager
Southern Railway Palakkad Division
Railbhavan, Olavakkode Palakkad
3.The Chief Claims Officer
Southern Railway
Chennai – 600 003 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.T.R.Rajagoplan)
O R D E R
By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:
Complainant booked two tickets on 9/12/12 in Tatkal Seva to travel from Chennai to Palakkad on 10/12/12 in 3rd AC coach. Ticket was issued to the complainant. On the arrival of the train, it was found that there was no 3rd AC compartment in the train. On enquiry it was informed that 3rd AC compartment was not available and complainant and his companion were compelled to travel in sleeper coach. Certificate to claim refund of the fare was issued by the TTE. Complainant has reserved the tickets in 3rd AC as they were not in a position to travel in the non AC compartment because of their health conditions and also considering the tedious travel from Chennai to Palakkad. Till the train reached the platform to board no information or facility was provided to the passengers who have reserved the tickets to opt for alternatives. According to the complainant the act of opposite parties in not providing the 3rd AC coach and not informing the same in advance amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
Opposite party filed version contending the following:
The train for which the complainant booked his ticket was Chennai Quilon Special Train. In that train 3rd AC coach was not provided and in its place an ordinary sleeper coach was provided with due information to passengers. The reason for not providing 3rd AC coach was due to non availability of spare coaches at Chennai Central on that particular day as two coaches at Chennai Central offered major repairs which became unserviceable and were sent to Perambur workshop. Alternative accommodation by the next lower class was provided with facility to refund the difference in fares. The TTE who was in charge of the sleeper coach has informed the passengers and has issued lower class certificate to all the passengers to get refund. So there is no willful negligence on the part of the Railway administration to provide a 3rd AC coach in the special train. Further states that as per rules complainant is only entitled for the difference in the fares and not eligible for any compensation. It is expressly provided in Rule 306 that Railway Administration does not guarantee reserved accommodation and Rule 307, provision for alternative accommodation. The Railway time table also gives these particulars to enable the passengers to be aware of such contingencies. Opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The evidence adduced by the parties consist of their respective chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant.
Issues for consideration :
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?
Issue No.1 &2
Facts of the case are more or less admitted. It is not in dispute that complainant booked two tickets in 3rd AC compartments in Chennai – Quilon Special Train. Instead of 3rd AC compartment, ordinary sleeper class compartment is provided is also not disputed. The reason for the same according to opposite party is that the two coaches suffered major repairs and were sent to Perambur workshop. Other than mere pleadings, no documentary evidence has been adduced by the opposite parties. The next question is whether the complainant has suffered any hardship on account of the act of the opposite party. Certainly complainant could have booked AC compartment for a more comfort journey. Not providing the same definitely cause hardship and discomfort to the parties. Moreover opposite parties has not taken any steps to inform the complainant regarding this aspect well in advance before the arrival of the train. No documentary evidence in this regard to show that it was informed to the parties. Had it been informed in advance complainant would have an option to cancel the ticket also. Railways being a major public utility service in the country ought to have maintained a standard service which a common man expects. No ordinary prudent man will make any enquiry regarding a confirmed ticket.
In view of the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which complainant has to be adequately compensated. In our view an amount of Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of May 2013.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Ticket No.80554777 issued to the complainant
Ext.A2 – Certificate No.A.154022 issued by T.T.E
Ext.A3 series – Copy of Lawyer notice sent to opposite parties by the complainants advocate with Acknowledgement cards (3 nos) dtd.24/12/12
Ext.A4 – Reply letter sent by DRM, Palakkad dtd.17/1/3
Ext.A5 – Letter sent by the CCM, Chennai dtd.10/1/13
Ext.A6 – Letter sent by the Sr.Div.Operations Manager, Chennai dtd.31/1/13
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Nil
Cost
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings
