Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

193/2013

D.Gabrial, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Head Quarters Office, - Opp.Party(s)

H.Mohammed Ghouse

12 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on:  07.10.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  30.01.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

MONDAY  THE 30^th   DAY OF JANUARY  2017

 

C.C.NO.193/2013

 

 

Mr.D.Gabriel,

No.B4/2, Indian Coast Guard Quarters,

G.M.Pet Road,

Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013.

                                                                                        ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.The General Manager,

Headquarters Office,

Northen Railway, Baroda House,

New Delhi,

 

2.The General Manager,

Southern Railway,

Parktown, Chennai – 600 003.

	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 10.10.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : H.Mohamed Ghouse, G.Baskar,

                                                                    M.Jayaveerapandian

Counsel for  Opposite parties                    :M/s. N.R.Narayanen,

                                                                    A.P.Sathya Moorthy and T.Arul Selvan

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is a  Coast  Guard had attended training Camp at Delhi and  he was returning to Chennai  by Duronto Express during the year 2013 from New Delhi to Chennai in AC 3 tier, B3 coach. After 15 minutes from the departure of the said train from New Delhi, the Complainant tried to use the toilet and found that there was not even drop of water in the toilet and washbasin in the said coach. Further toilet was unhygienic with bad odors and there were no proper ventilation in the Air-conditioned compartment. The Complainant immediately raised the Complaint to Mr.Pavan Kumar, TTR and he said that the problem would be rectified in the next station. He also sent on SMS Complaint.  The next day morning on 10.03.2013 at 5 a.m he went to toilet there was no drop of water. Hence he bought 4 water bottles from IRCTC canteen and use for his purpose. The Complainant also raised a Complainant in the Complaint book as advised by the TTR. On 08.04.2013 he sent an e-mail to the additional General Manager and he received a reply stating that the contractor was fined a sum of Rs.3,000/- and initiated  action. Hence the Opposite Parties failed to provide proper service and therefore they have committed Deficiency in Service.

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party submits that from 11.45 hrs to 15.30 hrs, all the coaches including toilets of the said Duronto Express were completely cleaned and the toilet tanks were also filled with water during the maintenance activities done at the Nizamuddin washing line in Delhi just prior to the train’s departure. The Complainant’s allegation that there was not a drop of water in the coach toilet soon after the train’s departure is utterly false and undermines the service motive and the customer centric attitude of the Indian Railways. The other allegations that the toilets in the adjacent coach were unclean and gave bad smell are also grossly untrue for the above reasons. The empty rakes were brought clean and sanitized direct from the maintenance depot to the platform for the scheduled journey and also the toilets are cleaned at regular travels by the amenity staff travelling in the train.   The allegation of the Complainant that there was no proper ventilation in the AC coach is misleading and baseless.  The Complainant informed the TTE at about 6 am on 10.03.2013 that the flush tap in the toilet was stuck. The TTE made immediate arrangements and within about ten minutes the attendant had rectified the tap into perfect working condition. The allegation that no steps were taken by the TTE to attend the problem is false. The toilet flush tap was stuck for a few minutes is possible due to wrong use by passengers but that had been repaired quickly by the attendant once it was brought to the TTE’s notice. The Complainant could also have temporarily used the toilets in the other coaches which are safely connected by vestibule. The SMS complaints are dealt with by South Central Railway and forwarded to the Railway concerned after verification of the issues involved. SMS complaints are generally suffixed by SCR followed by the Complaint No. and the Complaint number furnished by the Complainant does not fit into this category. The one and only issue is thus non working of a particular toilet flush tap for some time.  The Complainant had overlooked the fact that other passengers had also travelled in the coach and none of the passengers had either complained about lack of water supply or unclean toilets or experienced any discomfort with the AC system in the coach. The Complainant became very rude and in order to aggravate the issue, argued falsely that there was no water in the toilet. A passenger in fact came to the TTE’s rescue and clarified that there was water in the toilet. In order to not to precipitate the matter further, the TTE gave suggestion to the Complainant that he could record his grievance in the Complaint book, which the Complainant did but giving false facts. There is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties   and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.  

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4.POINT : 1

           The Complainant after completing his training program at  Delhi, he returned on 09.03.2013 in the  Duronto Express from Nizamuddin  to Chennai Central under Ex.A1 ticket and he made Complaint to the TTR that there was no water in the toilet, it was  not clean, unhygienic with bad smell and hence the TTR  directed the Complainant to write a Complaint in the Complaint book and accordingly he wrote a  Complaint under Ex.A3 in the Complaint book and the Complainant’s suffered with mental agony and further there was no ventilation in their coach and even after Complaint the TTE failed to rectify the problem and  therefore the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service.

          5. The Opposite Parties would reply that there was water in the toilet and only one toilet flush  tap was stuck for a few minutes and that was also rectified immediately with attender and the Complainant  became very rude in order to aggravate the issue and therefore the TTE went to his rescue and informed  him that he can write his grievances in the Complaint book and hence the Complainant falsely twisted the matter  and recorded false fact in the Complaint note book and therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service.         

          6. The Complainant travelled on 09.03.2013 from Nisammidutin to Chennai Central by duronto Express in AC 3 Tyre, B3 coach. The Complainant  after 15 minitues from the departure of the train, he found the toilet  and wash basin there was not even a drop of water and he tried in the other coaches, there also the same position. Then he Complained to the TTR Mr.Pavan Kumar  to rectify the problem and the same was not rectified till 10.p.m. Next day morning the Complainant wanted to use the toilet he found that there was no water. Then he went to IRCTC canteen and purchased 4 liters of water under Ex.A2 bill and used the same for his toilet purpose.

          7. Again the Complainant next day morning questioned the TTR about the deficiency of water, he informed him that he can write in the Complaint book about his grievance. Accordingly the Complainant wrote the non availability of water in the Complaint book and    Ex.A3 Complaint copy was given to him. However, the Opposite Parties pleaded in the written version that, the Complainant is rude and in order to aggravate the issue he falsely wrote the Complaint in the Complaint book that there was no water in the toilet.  However, in the said Complaint the TTR and other official and two witnesses have signed. They have not endorsed any objection in respect of the contents of the Complaint made therein  and this facts proves that there was no water in the toilet as alleged by the Complainant .If really, as alleged by the TTR the Complainant falsely stated in Ex.A2 Complaint, the TTR ought not have  endorsed his protest that the contents are false. The TTR is the custodian of the Complaint book. However, he did not endorse any protest, the TTR simply signed like others it only proves that there was no water in the toilet and washbasin with uncleanliness.

8. Ex.A6 is the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant for the action taken on the Ex.A3 Complaint of the Complainant. In Ex.A6 reply of the Opposite Parties, it has been clearly stated that the contractor was imposed a sum of Rs.3,000/- by way of penalty for non availability of water in coaches and cleanliness in the toilets of the train and further  departmental action also initiated against him.   Therefore,  Ex.A3 Complaint copy and Ex.A6 letter of the Opposite Parties proves the deficiencies of the  non availability of water in coaches and uncleanliness in toilets of the train alleged by the Complainant and therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service.

9. POINT NO:2

           The non availability of water in coaches and cleanness in toilets of the train  caused mental agony to the Complainant is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

       In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.     

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 30^th  day of January 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 09.03.2013                   Journey cum Reservation Ticket

 

Ex.A2 dated 10.03.2013                   Cash Memory Indian Railway Catering & Tourism

                                                   Corp.Ltd.,

 

Ex.A3 dated 10.03.2013                   Complaint Book exract

 

Ex.A4 dated 08.04.2013                   Complaint to 1^st Opposite Party through e-mail

 

Ex.A5 dated 09.04.2013                   Reply from 1^st Opposite Party through e-mail

 

Ex.A6 dated 18.06.2013                   Reply from 2^nd Opposite Party through e-mail

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                      ……. NIL…….

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT