Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/968

SHAJI S S - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY - Opp.Party(s)

M P SASIDHARAN NAIR

09 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 968/15

JUDGMENT DATED : 09.11.2018

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.198/2010

on the file of CDRF, Thrissur)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

1. Shaji.S.S, S/o.Sukumarapillai, Thekkumkattilveedu, Anakudi, Vamanapuram.P.O(HAS Sreechithravilasam Boys HS, Chirayinkil

 

2. Lekshmi Anand, D/o.Anand, D/o.Anand, Thekkumkattilveedu, Anakudi, Vamanapuram.P.O, W/o of the first appellant

 

3. G.Mohanlal, S/o.Gopalapillai, Haustubham, Chirayinkil.P.(Head Master, Sree Chithirathirunal Boys High School, Chirayinkil)

 

4. R.Radhamani, D/o.Bhaskarapillai, Kausthubham, Chirayinkil.P.O, W/o.the third appellant

 

5. Vandanalal, D/o.Mohanlal,  Kausthubham, Chirayinkil.P.O,

D/o.Third appellant

 

6. Aromal.A.S, So.V.K.Suresh kumar, Puthooram Sarkara,
7.  

 

7. RH.Renu, S/o.Ramachandran Pillai, Pournami, Market Road, Attingal, UPSA, Sreechithra Boys HS, Chirayinkil.P.O

 

8. JR.Lekshmi, D/o.RH Renu, Pournami, Market Road, Attingal, D/o.7^th appellant

 

9. JR Krishna, D/o.RH Renu, Pournami, Market Road, Attingal, D/o.7^th appellant

 

10. Viswamani, D/o.Viswananthan, Kavuvila, Koonthalloor,         

Chirayinkil (Sree Chithra Boys HS, Chirayinkil.P.O

 

11. Avinish.V.J, S/o.Viswanathan, Kavuvila, Koonthalloor,      

Chirayinkil (Sree Chithra Boys HS, Chirayinkil.P.O

 

12. A.Arsha, D/o.Viswamani, Kavuvila, Koonthalloor,     
13.  

 

13. K.Leena, W/o.Chandrachoodan, Keerthanam, Varkala.P.O

 

14. Keerthi.C.Nair, D/o.K.Leena, Keerthanam, Varkala, D/o.13^th Appellant

 

15. Ayush, S/o.K.Leena, Keerthanam, Varkala P.O

 

(By Adv.Sri.M.P.Sasidharan Nair)

 

565.  

RESPONDENTS

1. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai

 

2. The Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram – 14

 

3. The Manager, Alhind Tours and Travels Pvt Ltd, Vrindavan Building, TC 15/50, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram -10

 

78503207062.  

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainants in CC.NO.198/2010 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the forum by which the complaint filed by them was dismissed.

2.     The case of the complainant is as follows. There are 15 complainants in the case who belonging to Sree Chithira Vilasam Boys High School, Chirayinkeezhu. The staff including the family members decided to conduct a family tour on 01.11.2009 to visit Ernakulam and to return on the same day by train. The first complainant who was authorized to book ticket for the tour, paid amounts to the third opposite party and reserved ticket for 42 persons on 31.10.2009 by electronic IRCTC’s e-ticketing service. All of them got confirmed ticket. out of the 42 passengers the reservation for 8 of them were provided in D5 coach and all others were provided in SL2 coach. When the complainants got into the SL2 coach it was noticed that it was an ordinary one and the capacity of the same was only 50 and no reservations seats were provided for the complainants to whom reserved seats were 55-58, 66-71 and 78-81. As a result the complainants including aged people and the children were forced to travel without seating accommodation from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram, even after reserving the seats with extra payment well, in advance. The first complainant, on behalf the other complainants sent many letters to the opposite parties regarding the incident and to refund the amount but nothing happened. So the complaint is filed for refund of the amount and claiming compensation. The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed version raising the following contentions:- It is admitted that the coach attached to the train was having lesser number of seats. SL2 coach in Janasatabi was coach no.CZRJ 02706. But the same was due for periodic overhauling. So the railway administration was left with only two options, either to replace the coach or to cancel the coach. Considering the larger public interest of the customers and if cancellation is done it would cause much difficulties to passengers, a decision was taken to replace the coach with coach no.SLR 67703. The complainants were provided with accommodation in the same train. The persons who were provided seats in SL2 coach were given seats in coach nos D7, D10 & D12. If the complainants failed to occupy those seats they are responsible. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainants are not entitled to get any relief against the opposite parties. The third opposite party is exparte.

3.     The complainant filed proof affidavit and produced seven documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P7. On the side of the opposite parties Exts.D1 to D4 were marked. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum passed the order dismissing the complaint. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the complainants have preferred the present appeal.

4.     Heard both sides. Perused the records.

5.     There is no dispute to the fact that the complainants have booked seats for travelling from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram in the Janasatabdi Express. Exts.P1, P2 series and P7 series prove that fact. It is the case of the complainant that some of them were provided seats in SL2 coach and when they entered into that coach, it was found that the same was only seating capacity of 50. The complainants who were provided with seat numbers 55-58, 66-71 and 78-81 have no seats in the said coach. So the complainants were forced to travel without seating accommodation from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram. Even though the complainants sent several letters and Ext.P3 notice the opposite parties have not refunded the amount. It is the case of the opposite parties 1 & 2 that SL2 coach running in Janasatabdi express was coach no.CZRJ 02706 and it was due for periodic overhauling. Considering the larger public interest of passengers a decision was taken to replace the coach with coach no.SLR 67703. That coach was attached to the train and it is admitted that it was having lesser number of seats. It is stated by the opposite parties that 16 passengers were provided accommodation with confirmed seats in D7, D10 and D12 coaches and to prove that the opposite parties have produced Exts.D2, D3 & D4 charts. It is stated by the opposite parties that if the complainants failed to occupy the seats the opposite parties are not responsible. It is an admitted fact that the complainants have travelled in the same train. As found by the district forum, after taking the journey, the complainant cannot claim refund of the amount and the complainants had the option of cancelling the journey ticket. But the complainant chooses to travel by the same train. So they are not entitled to get refund of the amount.

6.     Counsel for the respondent / appellant has relied on Rule 306 of IRCA Coaching Tariff Part 1 Volume 1 which says ‘Reserved accommodation not guaranteed. The railway administration do not guarantee reserved accommodation, whether seats, births, compartment coaches or carriages by any particular train and will admit no claim for compensation for inconvenience, loss or extra expenses, due to such accommodation not being provided or attached to times by which asked for’ . In GM, South Eastern Railways Vs Anand Prasad Singha (1991) 1 CPJ 10 it has been held that a railway passenger travelling on payment of fare is a ‘consumer’. In B.Pushpakanthi Vs Southern Railways 111(2000) CPJ 3 it was held that not providing birth against reserved accommodation is deficiency of service despite Rule 306 of Railway rules. So the opposite parties 1 & 2 cannot claim protection under Rule 306 of Railway Rules. But, in the present case, it has come out in evidence that the complainants were given seating facility in other coaches and if they failed to occupy the same the opposite parties cannot be held responsible. It is the case of the opposite parties that the coach attached to the Janasatabdi was due for periodic over hauling and the railway administration was left with two options either to replace the coach or to cancel the coach. Considering the larger public interest and the inconvenience that may cause to the passengers, it was decided to replace the coach with another coach even though it was having lesser number of seats. If the original coach was put into service in the train, it would have been a violation of safety norms and it might have caused major accident, then the situation would have been different. Considering the safety of larger number of passengers using the train, SL2 coach was cancelled for periodic over hauling and another coach was provided. So, as found by the district forum, no deficiency can to be attributed with the opposite parties. As observed by the district forum, the opposite parties have given more importance to the safety of the public and they have satisfactorily done what they can do, when a regular coach was cancelled without causing inconvenience to large number of public. The complainants failed to prove that they have sustained much loss and inconvenience by the act of the opposite parties. Considering all these facts, the district forum has dismissed the complaint. We find that no reason / ground to interfere with the order passed by the district forum and hence the appeal is to be dismissed.

 

        In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

        The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH                      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

 

 

Be/  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 968/15

JUDGMENT DATED : 09.11.2018