Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/116/2015

A.Srinivasan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Southern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Persion

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

                                                              Complaint presented on:  08.07.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.03.2018

 

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

                    THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY THE 28^th   DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.116/2015

 

 

A.Srinivasan,

Plot No.42/2, Door No.1,

3^rd Cross, Bajanai Koil Street,

Hasthinapuram, Chennai – 64.

                                                                                                 ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

	The General Manager, Southern Railways, Poonnamalli High Road, George Town, Chennai – 600 003.
	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  04.08.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

Counsel for Opposite Party                 : Mr.N.R.Narayanen  

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

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

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party to repay the ticket charges, compensation for mental agony with litigation expenses u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The Complainant and his wife are senior citizens travelled on 24.02.2015 in berth Nos 25 & 28 of the reserved Coach No.S1 in Sanghamithra super fast express from Bangalore city to Chennai central. The train was already late by 3 ½ hours from the schedule time.  During journey the unreserved passengers entered into the coach and the same was jam- packed and 14 passengers have travelled in that compartment including 8 unreserved passengers. The reserved passengers were unable to use the lavatories and huge luggage also dumped in the compartment. After 4 hours only the TTE arrived at Jolarpet and the reserved passengers Complained to him and he simply laughed and collected his mamool from the unreserved passengers. Throughout the journey the Complainant and other reserved passengers were forced to sit and travel with the unreserved passengers and that caused difficulties and mental agony to them.  They were even unable to walk in the coach freely to use even the lavatories. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to repay the ticket charges, compensation for mental agony with litigation expenses.

 

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had allegedly faced during commencement of the train journey at Bangalore City had occurred in a railway station which comes under the administrative control of South Western Railway headquartered in Karnataka State. The complainant has not joined the proper party. On this short ground alone, the Consumer complaint is liable to summarily rejected.

          3. The South Western Railway has clarified that no unauthorized persons had travelled in any of the reserved coaches of Sanghamitra Superfast Express on 24.02.2015 and the TTE also did not receive any complaint. The TTE had only collected the difference fare from the passengers pursuant to fare revision against proper receipt and the amount had also been printed in the reservation charts. It is further stated that the train in which the complainant travelled is a day train and the departure time for the train in Bangalore City is 9 A.M. The arrival time for the train in Chennai Central is 3.15 P.M. Sleeping accommodation is provided as per rules from 9 P.M. to 6 A.M.  only in reserved coaches. If the complainant wanted to sleep during day time, he should have requested the other two passengers sharing the lower berth to give room for sleeping. There is hence no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.

          4. It is clear case of wrongful assumption and misunderstanding of railway rules and procedures by the complainant. The other allegations such as presence of luggages in the pathway and inability to use the toilets etc have been made only for the purpose of sustaining the complaint. The complainant had made false allegations with the ulterior motive of unjustly enriching herself at the expense of the public exchequer. Hence the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5. The Complainant filed proof affidavit Ex.A1 to Ex A3 marked. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B3 Marked. Oral arguments of both heard.

6.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether this forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?

          2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

7.POINT NO:1

          The complainant and his wife commenced their journey at Bangalore city. According to the opposite party the commencement of train at Bangalore city and hence South Western Railway, Karnataka state only will have jurisdiction. Though the train started at Bangalore and it ends travel at Chennai. Hence both Bangalore and Chennai will have concurrent jurisdiction. In view of such conclusion we hold that this forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

8. POINT NO:2

           The case of the Complainant is that he and his wife are senior citizens travelled on 24.02.2015 in berth Nos 25 & 28 of reserved Coach No.S1 in Sanghamithra super fast express from Bangalore city to Chennai and during the journey  8 unreserved passengers entered into their compartment  and travelled with them and consequently the Complainant and other reserved passengers could not sleep in their berths and they were forced to travel by sitting throughout the journey and  even after Complaint to the TTE, he did not  vacate the unreserved passengers from the compartment and not made comfortable journey to the Complainant and other reserved passengers and therefore the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.

          9. The opposite party would contend that the complainant commenced his journey with his wife at Bangalore City Railway Station which comes under the administrative control of South Western Railway, Karnataka state and hence on the point of jurisdiction, this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and further sleeping accommodation is provided as per rules from 9.00 PM to 6.00 AM only in the reserve coaches and hence sleeping facility is not provided during day journey and therefore the opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

          10. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite party is that

1. he had purchased confirmed berth tickets, however due to unauthorized persons entry he was not unable to utilize the berth,
2. when he complained to the TTE he did not care and also not made arrangements to utilize the berth.

The tickets utilized for the journey is marked as Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the letter written by the Complainant to the Opposite Party dated 24.03.2015. The complainant alleges unauthorized persons were entered in the reserved coach and the TTE did not turn up for 4 hours and he made complaint and the TTE laughed at him. If it is a genuine incident, the complainant should have recorded the same in the complaint book which is very well available with the TTE himself. The complainant has not taken any effort to enquire about the complaint book with TTE. There is no other evidence adduced to accept that the unauthorized persons entered the coach. The opposite party pleaded in the written version that the TTE collected only the revised fare and that was not denied by the complainant. Hence we hold that the allegation of the complainant that the TTE collected mamool from the unreserved passengers is not accepted.

          11. The opposite party filed Ex.B3 terms and conditions for advanced reservation. The said document clearly states that sleeping accommodation would be available between 22.00 hours and 06.00 hours, during night hours only. Therefore the contention of the complainant that he has not been provided berth during day time is not acceptable and as per Ex.B3, he is not entitled for such a facility. If the complainant wants to utilize the berth, he could have requested the co-passengers and utilized the same. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has not proved none of the deficiencies alleged against the opposite party and hence, it is held that the opposite party has not committed deficiency in service.

12. POINT NO:3

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex. A1 dated 24.02.2015                  Ticket Acknowledgement Card 

Ex.A2 dated 24.03.2015                   Legal Notice

Ex.A3 dated 11.09.2015         MIOT International

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 24.02.2015                   TTE of Sanghamitra Superfast Express General

                                                     Receipt No.36457826

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Schedule showing the departure and arrival time of

                                                     the train at KSR Bengaluru and Chennai

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Railway Time Table showing the details of

                                                     sleeping accommodation

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT