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. 360/2010 Filed on 10.11.2010
Dated : 31.12.2011
Complainant ;
K.G. Mohanan, T.C 31/623(3), Saranya, S.N. Nagar-61, Pettah P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 024.
Opposite parties :
The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003.
The Railway Divisional Manager, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. S. Renganathan)
K.Ravindran Nair, Railway TTE concerned.
This O.P having been heard on 09.12.2011, the Forum on 31.12.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Complainant was travelling from Trivandrum Central to Mumbai CST along with his son in Cape Mumbai Express (Train No. 6382) on 20.06.2010. They were on the way to Surat for an interview for his son at the National Institute of Technology Surat on 23.06.2010. They were passengers with RAC status in S3 coach of the train. The reservation was effective from TVC to CSTM as per PNR 4318479044. As they were passengers with RAC status by Railway norms, they were assured of 2 seats even at the onset of the journey. In the status report prepared by the railway berth number 63 had been provided for them. Hence from TVC they had occupied seat No. 63 and 64 placed at both the ends of berth No. 63. When the train reached Thiruvalla railway station, the TTE maning the coach No. S3 allotted seat No. 64 occupied by his son to another passenger who boarded the train from Kollam junction. The TTE also removed him from that seat and restricted both of them to one seat to travel the rest of the journey from Thiruvalla. The TTE had instantly corrected the new status of the journey provided by him in their reservation slip also. The action of the TTE was utter injustice as he could not have reduced the facility offered them by Railway at the onset of the journey as passengers with RAC status. They were disabled to continue the journey by the TTE. They deboarded the train at the Thiruvalla station and lodged a complaint instantly with the Station Master. Thereafter he has made a complaint to the railway authorities. But the railway authorities have not so far attended the complaints. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum claiming compensation and other consequential reliefs.
The opposite parties General Manager, Southern Railway and others filed version. The opposite parties denied the contention of the complainant that he had confirmed reservation on 20.06.2010 by 6382 Express. His ticket status was only RAC (Reservation against Cancellation) for himself and his companion which meant that they had no confirmed berth but they could occupy the seat marked against their names, till they are allotted with a confirmed berth subject of availability, that in case vacancy does not arise the passenger will not be provided with a berth. In this case the seat number allotted to the complainant and the companion was seat No. 63 in S3 coach as admitted in the complaint itself and they were to occupy that seat. The opposite parties submitted that the seat No. 64 was allotted to another passenger namely Raji Raju F30 QLN-KJT with a confirmed berth No. 64 during day hours. The complainant and his companion had seat numbers clearly printed in the chart as 63 together. It maybe noted that no other seat number was allotted to them. As such they had to occupy the seat No. 63 together. In this case the complainant tried to occupy both seat 63 and 64, one allotted to Smt. Raji Raju. The ticket examiner of coach No. S3 had to intervene in the scene based on a complaint lodged by Smt. Raji Raju that her seat No. 64 was being forcibly taken by the complainant and his companion and refused to provide even after specific request. It is the duty of the Ticket Examiner to allot berths and seats as per the chart and priority fixed in it. As such the Ticket Examiner had politely requested the complainant to vacate the seat No. 64 and explained that the seat No. 63 had to be occupied by the complainant and his companion. This fact is admitted by the complainant in the complaint. The opposite parties denied the averment contained in the complaint that the complainant and party were assured of 2 seats even at the onset of the journey is also false and hence denied. The opposite parties submitted that berth No. 63 was not allotted to the complainant, only a seat was allotted to them. Complainant and his son were occupying the seat Nos. 63 and 64 illegally. This was an illegal occupation since berth No. 64 as well as seat No. 64 was allotted to a lady passenger namely Raji Raju. TTE had requested his son to move from seat No. 64 is correct as the rightful occupant Smt. Raji Raju had made a claim on her seat. The ticket examiner did not force or request the complainant at any point of time to detrain but he had only told him that he had a chance of getting a berth. The complainant had in effect negated that possibility also. The opposite parties further submitted that as per IRCA coaching tariff reserved accommodation is not at all guaranteed to any passenger as per this Rule and no claims for inconvenience or cost or extra expenses for not providing any reserved accommodation will stand good in any court. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed proof affidavit and from his side Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. Opposite parties have no oral evidence . From their side 4 documents were produced.
Points to be ascertained :
Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice occurred from the side of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?
Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant had booked 2 seats to travel from Trivandrum to Mumbai CST, but they got only one seat in RAC status in S3 seat No. 63. The ticket reservation was effective from TVC to CSTM as per PNR 4318479044. Ext. P1 is the reservation slip. As per this document they have allotted only one seat in RAC status i.e' seat No. 63. With this ticket they started their journey from Trivandrum. The complainant himself admitted that they have allotted seat No. 63 only in S3 coach and they have occupied seat No. 63 and 64 till the train reached at Chengannur. The complainant alleges that when the train left Chengannur the TTE and another passenger came and strictly removed his son from seat No. 64. The complainant stated that the action of the TTE was utter breach of rules. Hence they had no alternative but to deboard at Thiruvalla, and instantly lodged a complaint before the Thiruvalla Railway Authority. Ext. P2 is the copy of that complaint. Thereafter he had sent complaints to the railway authorities about this matter. Ext. P3 and P4 are the copies of that complaints. Ext. P5 and P6 are the copies of air tickets of their alternative journey. Ext. P7 is the copy of the reservation sitting accommodation offered to passengers possessing RAC ticket status. As per it “the passengers whose names figure under RAC are provided reserved sitting accommodation initially and are likely to get berths becoming vacant due to last minutes cancellation of reservation of passengers not turning up in time before the departure of the train”. The complainant argued that as per this rule they were eligible for two seats. In this case the complainant and his son were allotted only one seat i.e; seat No. 63 as per RAC status, since they cannot claim 2 seats. But they illegally occupied 2 seats. Actually seat No. 64 was a confirmed ticket. It is the duty of the ticket examiner to allot berths and seats as per the chart and priority fixed. The opposite parties produced the chart as Ext. D3. As per Ext. D3 seat No. 64 was allotted to Raji Raju. In this circumstance the Ticket Examiner has no other way than to demand the complainant to vacate the seat No. 64. In that condition the complainant and his son had to discontinue that journey. From the pleadings, evidence and documents we find that there is no deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. The complainant in this case had mistakenly believed that as per one ticket in RAC status they had the right to occupy two seats. From that belief this complaint has occurred. The opposite parties Indian Railway is a Government of India undertaking and it is run almost strictly according to the provisions of the Railway Act, 1980. Hence complaint is dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
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 31st day of December 2011. Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
jb S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 360/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - K.G. Mohanan
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of reservation slip
P2 - Copy of complaint dated 20.06.2010
P3 - Copy of letter dated 20.06.2010 issued by complainant
P4 - Copy of letter dated 17.09.2010 issued by complainant
P5 - Copy of air ticket
P6 - Copy of air ticket
P7 - Copy of reservation siting accommodation offered to
passengers
P8 - Copy of PNR status details.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Copy of reservation of berths.
D2 - Copy of the complaint dated 20.06.2010
D3 - Copy of chart for Cape Mumbai Express
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
