The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that he purchased one railway journey ticket bearing PNR No.610-5583056, Ticket No. F 08032202, date of Journey 02.01.2018, Train Name KYQ BNC HUMSAFAR, Class – 3A, Coach No. B12, Berth from 41-45, for the reserved railway journey of the complainant along with his four family members, from station Kamakhya (KYQ), under N. F. Railways to station Howrah under Eastern Railways, the said ticket was purchased on 04.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.7,525/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred twenty five) only. The aforesaid ticket was purchased from the railway booking counter at Ichhapur railway station, which is under the control of opposite party no.1, being General Manager, Eastern Railway. It has been alleged by the complainant that during journey period i.e. from 02.01.2018 to 03.01.2018, dirty used bedrolls were given in unsealed and/or torn out packets in place of sealed packet in the said HUMSAFAR express on 02.01.2018 at 9.40 p.m., after the train left the starting station Kamakhya which is under the control of G. M., N. F. Railways. On enquiry, the complainant found that no coach attendant was allotted for coach B12 on 02.01.2018. The coach attendant of B13 served the used dirty bedrolls in unsealed packet. Thereafter the complainant called the Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) of the said train and showed him the dirty bedrolls served in unsealed packets by the coach attendant namely Mr. Rohit Dhan claiming to be AC coach attendant by showing his ID Card bearing no.185K which was expired on 15.08.2017, much before the date of journey i.e. on 02.01.2018. The complainant lodged a complaint in the said train vide Book no.1450, Serial no.7 on 02.01.2018 at 9.58 p.m. The concerned Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) after inspecting the dirty bedrolls and aforesaid ID Card of the attendant Mr. Rohit Dhan, written a note on the complaint form and confirmed all allegations of the complainant by not providing clean bedrolls during train journey on and from 02.01.2018 to 03.01.2018 to the complainant in accordance to the terms of ticket/service. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service. Moreover, there was no dedicated coach attendant allotted to B12. The complainant and his family members were deprived of proper service i.e. proper cleaning of the floor of the coach, proper monitoring and control of the machines of the said coach, monitoring the cleanliness of the toilets. That apart, by allowing Mr. Rohit Dhan as a coach attendant of B13 without having any valid ID Card, the opposite parties caused breach of security of the passengers in violation of rules of Indian Railways. The complainant further stated that he also communicated the fact of such huge negligence of the opposite parties to the public grievance portal vide reference no.PMOPG/E/2018/0007360 and the matter was settled with remarks as “Inconvenience is deeply regretted. Necessary penalty has been imposed on the concerned contractual firm”. The complainant also served notice upon the opposite parties vide email dated 30.10.2019 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) only for deficiency in service regarding health hazards, security hazards, physical and mental agony but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to it . Hence this case.
The opposite party nos.1 & 2 denied the allegation by filing written version in this case. The opposite parties state that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the case as the incident happened in a Kamakhya railway station in the state of Assam. No cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Commission as such the case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is also alleged that for every train, there is owning railway of the train and the owning railway is supposed to provide primary maintenance of the train, supply bedrolls to the bonafide reservists in the train as well as to provide coach escorting staff. According to the opposite parties the complainant had reservation for journey from Guwahati, belongs to N. F. Railway (opposite party no.3). Therefore opposite party nos.1 & 2 are not liable for deficiency in service in this case.
Opposite party no.3 by filing written statement stated that the complainant has no locus standi to file the case, as such the complaint application is not maintainable in the eye of law. Moreover, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint application filed by the complainant. It has been stated by the opposite party no.3 that the burden of proof lies upon the complainant by producing proper documentary evidence. Opposite party no.3 categorically submits that no complaint has been lodged by other passengers of the said train or of that particular coach and opposite party no.3 cannot be held liable to compensate the complainant as there was no fault on their part and prays for dismissal of the case.
Considering the rival pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed :-
Issues
- Is the case maintainable in law and in its present form?
- Has this Commission any jurisdiction to try the case?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as claimed for?
Decision with reasons
The complainant has filed affidavit in chief along with documentary evidence in this case. The original train ticket being Ticket No.F 08032202 and PNR No.SAC 996421 for journey from Kamakhya to Howrah on 02.01.2018 in coach B12 is marked Document-1. The carbon copy of the complaint signed by Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) is marked Document-2. Photo copy of the status report of PMO Public Grievance Office is marked Document-3.
The complainant filed reply to the questionnaire of opposite party but it has not been submitted on solemn affirmation on oath. Therefore, the reply filed by the complainant cannot be treated as evidence in view of section 38(9)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The opposite party nos.1 & 2 filed affidavit in chief but no documentary evidence filed by them. Opposite party no.3 also filed affidavit in chief but not filed any documentary evidence. Opposite party nos.1 & 2 filed reply to the questionnaire of the complainant but the same has not been submitted on solemn affirmation on oath. Therefore, the reply filed by the opposite parties cannot be treated as evidence.
The opposite party no.3 submitted affidavit in chief but no documentary evidence filed in the case. Opposite party no.3 has not submitted any affidavit in reply to the questionnaire filed by the complainant.
Issue nos.1 to 3
For the sake of brevity and convenience all the above three issues are taken up together for consideration and discussion.
On scrutiny of the complaint application as well as material on record, it appears that this Commission has ample jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, issue no.2 is decided in favour of the complainant.
The sole complainant Sushanta Kumar Saha in his affidavit in chief submitted that he and his other four (4) family members undertook a journey from Kamakhya to Howrah junction on 02.01.2018 by train KYQ-BNC-Humsafar, class 3A, Coach B12, Berth nos. 41 to 45. The said train ticket has been marked document-1. The complainant alleged in his evidence that there was no coach attendant in B12 on that day and they were deprived of proper service in the train. One Mr. Rohit Dhan claiming to be an attendant of AC coach B13 served them dirty bedrolls in unsealed packets. The said Mr. Rohit Dhan did not have any valid ID Card on that date. The period of his ID Card bearing no.185K was lapsed on 15.08.2017, much before the date of journey of the complainant i.e. on 02.01.2018. The complainant further stated in his evidence that he made a complaint with a Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) vide book no.1450, serial no.7 on 02.01.2018 at 9.58 p.m. The carbon copy of the said complaint is marked Documen-2. It is also stated by the complainant in his evidence that the Train Ticket Examiner noted his opinion on the complaint itself under his signature. Document nos.1 and 2 have not been denied by opposite party nos.1 & 2 and opposite party no.3 during cross examination of the complainant by way of filing questionnaires. Document no.1 is the train ticket for five persons and document no.2 reveals that the complainant Sushanta Kumar Saha was travelling by train name KYQ on 02.01.2018 and he met the Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) on train at 9.58 p.m. The said Sushanta Kumar Saha had valid train ticket bearing PNR No.SAC 996421, B12 coach Berth nos. 41 to 45 (Document-1). The complainant Sushanta Kumar Saha made a complaint to the effect that the bedrolls were supplied in unsealed packets which were dirty and apparently seemed to be used one. The said bedrolls were supplied by Mr. Rohit Dhan claiming to be a AC coach attendant who submit ID Card No.185K which had been lapsed on 15.08.2017. This complaint was made in presence of other passengers Mr. Sudip Mallick travelling on the same train and coach having his ticket bearing PNR No.6205582559, B12, Berth nos.49 to 52. The concerned Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) made an endorsement to the effect under his signature. There was no attendant in coach no.B12. Mr. Rohit Dhan bedroll staff of coach B13 supplied bedrolls in coach B12 and all bedrolls supplied in unsealed packet and dirty. Rohit Dhan had no valid ID card on that day. During cross examination of the complainant this document has also not been denied either opposite party nos.1 & 2 or opposite party no.3 by filing any questionnaires.
In the above circumstances, it can be safely hold that the complainant has proved that he and his other four (4) family members were travelling by train named KYQ BNC HUMSAFAR on 02.01.2018, class 3A, coach B12, Berth nos.41 to 45 vide ticket no. F-08032202, PNR no. 610-5583056. He has also been able to prove that he made a complaint (document no.2) with the Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) of the said train at about 9.58 p.m. regarding unsealed packets of dirty bedrolls which were given to them by Mr. Rohit Dhan who claimed to be the attendant of coach no.B12 but he had no valid ID Card with him. The allegation made by the complainant had been fully endorsed by the Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) of the said train in writing on the complaint (document no.2) under his signature.
Now let us consider whether the case is maintainable in law and in its present form.
It is evident from document no.1 that vide ticket no.08032202, PNR no. 610-5583056 total five passengers travelled on 02.01.2018 from Kamakhya to Howrah station. It is crystal clear that as five passengers were travelling on the basis of a single ticket under one PNR number on payment of consideration amount of Rs.7,525/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred twenty five) only. Therefore all the five passengers were joint consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
On scrutiny of the record it appears that the same has been filed on 30.12.2019 under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is as follow :
“12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.- (1) A complainant in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by-
- ..........................................
- ..........................................
- One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested; or
- ................................................................................................................................................................................................................”
It is needles to reiterate that in this case there are more than one consumers having the same interest. But at the time of institution of the instant complaint case, the complainant has not sought for any permission of the District Forum, on behalf, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested in terms of section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Therefore, the case is not maintainable in law and its present form as the same is barred under section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Thus, point no.1 is decided against the complainant.
Consequently, the complaint case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the complainant case be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost.
Dictated by me
…....................
President
