Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/182/2014

Thiru.T.Chandrasekaran, M.L., - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

02 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL     … MEMBER

 

C.C. No.182 of 2014

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on:   02.06.2022

Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, M.L.,

No.38, P.V.koil Street,

Royapuram, Chennai 600 013.                                                                                                       … Complainant

vs.

1.The General Manager,

I Floor, NGO Main Building,

Southern Railway, Park Town,

Chennai 600 003.

 

2. The Chief Commercial Manager,

Southern Railway, Park Town,

Chennai 600 003.

 

3. The Station Master,

Coimbatore Railway Station,

Coimbatore-18.

 

4. The Station Master,

Madras Central Railway Station,

Chennai 600 003.

 

4. Divisional Railway Manager,

General Branch, DRM Complex,

Southern Railway,

Salem 636 005.                                                                                                                               … Opposite Parties

 

             For Complainant              :  M/s.R.Augustine

             For OP Nos.1 to 3             :  M/s.N.R.Narayanan

This Complaint came up for final hearing on 19.05.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

             Complaining service deficiency against the Railways due to the alleged failure on their part in ensuring convenient accommodation to the complainant & his family in the 3 Tier A.C. Coach of Nilgiri Express as per the Reservation Booking and further whining that the Travelling Ticket Examiners allegedly exhibited a rude & impolite conduct that caused severe mental agony to him and his family, the complainant has approached this Commission with the present case, seeking to direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally to pay him,

             a) Rs.25,00,000/- for the hardships, stress, strain, etc. suffered by him & his family including age-old parents;

             b) Rs.1,370/-  towards refund of fare, on account of the travel undertaken in a lower class; and

             c) Rs.1,500/- towards cost of the legal notice issued to the OPs.

            

             2. In brief, the case of the complainant, as projected in the Complaint, is as follows:-

             The complainant, a Subordinate Judicial Officer posted at Coimbatore, for the purpose of participating in a competitive examination for promotion to the post of District Judge/Entry Level to be held at Chennai on 14.06.2014 and also to get Transfer Certificate & Mark Sheets of his sons from a School at Egmore, booked reservation tickets on 20.05.2014 for self and his family in respect of the onward journey on 12.06.2014 from Coimbatore to Chennai in 3 Tier AC Coach of Train No.12672 and the return journey on 15.06.2014 from Chennai to Coimbatore in Train No.12671. Hoping that the journey would be pleasant and comfortable, after verifying the then current status from the Reservation Chart that indicated the position as  “P1-B3-59, P2-B3-64, P3-B5-24 and P4-B5-30”, the complainant reached the Train, but, he was shocked to find that B3-59 & B3-64 alone were available and B5-24 & B5-30 converted as Berth Nos.2 and 3 in a II class Non A/c Sleeper Coach that was far way from B3 AC Coach.  Had there been any prior intimation by the Railways, it would have enabled the complainant to cancel the ticket and opt for some other mode, but, due to the failure on the part of the Railways in giving any beforehand information, the complainant was running along with his family from pillar to post to get apprised of the drastic change.  Fearing that the train would start any time, inevitably, they had to travel separately, in that, the complainant and his younger son travelled in the non-AC Sleeper Coach while his wife and elder son in the AC coach-B3.  After about 15 minutes, a TTE by name C.Mohan came and questioned the complainant how dare he could travel when the allotment in B3 was for his minor children only.  With his unwarranted questions and the indifferent conduct, TTE-Mohan put the complainant in an awkward situation and at last, he issued a certificate for claiming refund of fare due to their travel in a lower class.   About 70 passengers were left in lurch of the status in Coach-B5 and no pillow/bed cover was provided to the passengers in spite of demands and, in such an exasperating situation, without properly explaining the passengers about the reason for depriving them of the AC facility, the TTE only exhibited a rude behavior towards them.  Similarly, another TTE who examined the Tickets in B-3 Coach, insisted the complainant’s wife for production of ID Card and in spite of being explained by her about the situation created by the Railways, he scolded her in filthy language that made her feel bad in the midst of co-passengers, especially when the fault is on the side of the Railways.  In respect of the return journey,  the complainant was allotted Seat Nos.58, 59, 61 and 62 in B5 Coach and since his parents had opted to come along with them, he booked a ticket in the same train and, as per the Chart prepared, they were allotted Berth Nos.19 & 21 in the same B5 AC three tier coaches.  While so, after entraining, he found that the coach was replaced from B5 to B4 with Seat Nos.50, 51, 53 and 54, all middle and upper berths.  Further Seat No.19 and 21 in B5 Coach were made a second class sleeper coach without AC facility.  Since the complainant had a bad experience earlier on 12.06.2014, he requested his parents to occupy their seats in the Non-AC Sleeper Coach.  The parents of the complainant, who are senior citizens and never used to travel in non-AC Sleeper, travelled all along by sitting in the footpath, since the TTE did not come forward to their rescue in making any alternative arrangement and further, basic facilities like pillow and bed-cover were not provided to them.  The complainant and his other family members also were put to much inconvenience due to allotment of only middle and upper berths.   By the above instances of service deficiency on the part of the Railways, the complainant and his family members not only suffered physical strain but were also subjected to great mental agony.  Hence, he seeks for grant of the relief as mentioned above.

 

             3. The case of the complainant is resisted by the OPs by filing a written version, wherein, among other things, it is stated thus:-

             When the complainant made the booking on 20.05.2014, in respect of the onward journey from Coimbatore to Chennai, only a waitlisted ticket for 3 tier AC was issued and, at the time of preparation of Reservation Chart, in view of the improvement in status and as per availability,  2 berths were confirmed each in B3 & B5 3 tier AC Coach.  But, due to operational reasons, B5 coach could not be attached to the train; hence, the said coach was replaced with a Non-AC Sleeper Coach wherein 2 passengers were accommodated.  Even though the respondents made attempts to accommodate the family of the complainant in the B3 coach itself against the Emergency Quota that was vacant then, the same could not be done due to technical software problem in the computerized reservation system.   Frequent announcements were made from the Information Centre in Coimbatore Railway Station about the replacement of B5 coach with a Non-AC Sleeper Coach and proper guidance was also given to all passengers who booked in the B5/3 tier Ac Coach to travel in the Sleeper Class and to avail refund of the difference in fare.  The Railway Administration accordingly issued Pay Order No.37031, dated 27.06.2014 for Rs.1,370/- towards refund of the difference in fare in respect of the 2 children in the complainant’s ticket and that of his parents. The complainant travelled in the Sleeper Coach with one child and his wife travelled in the AC Coach with the other child.  On being told by the complainant that his wife was travelling in the AC coach along with the other child, after verification, the TTE promptly issued the Lower Class Certificate for both child tickets.   The  TTE in the AC Coach/B3 also signed the ticket produced by the complainant’s wife and only made a general enquiry about the other two passengers.  Since original ID was not produced by the Passenger, he made the endorsement ‘ID not shown’ as required under the rules, otherwise, he would be answerable in case there was any checking by the vigilance squad.  Bed rolls are supplied in AC coaches only and no request was received from the complainant for supply of the same in the non-AC sleeper coach.  On 15.06.2014 also, B5 AC coach could not be attached due to operational reasons.  The complainant, his wife and two children were given accommodation in B4 AC Coach and the complainant’s parents were accommodated in sleeper coach by allotment of middle and upper berths which were only available then in the order of priority. The administration had attached the sleeper coach in the place of B5 AC coach for the reason that the passengers should not be affected and it was also announced that if passengers desired to cancel the tickets due to change in coach, they would be given full refund and if they opted to travel in the sleeper coach, difference of fare will be refunded on the basis of Lower Class Certificate issued by the TTE.  Thus, the administration had provided alternate accommodation in the interest of passengers and had also paid refund under the given circumstances. All the other allegations made by the complainant are exaggerated statements, devoid of any truth.   Although the complainant had employed harsh language against the officials of the Railways, the Administration gave a polite reply to the complainant’s legal notice on 05.08.2014, explaining the facts and circumstances involved in the matter.  The AC coach was not attached due to operational reasons against which, the complainant cannot have any grievance.     Further, refund has already been given to the complainant and claim for any further payment is totally unjustified.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

        4.  To substantiate the claim and counter-claim, both sides filed their respective proof affidavits and while the complainant has filed 10 documents as Exs.A1 to A10, on the side of the OPs/Railways, 6 documents have been marked as Exs.B1 to B6.

 

             5. Heard the submissions of the counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

            

        6. It is the grievance of the complainant that, during the onward journey in the Nilgiri Express on 12.06.2014, due to the split up in the accommodation after the suspension of B5 coach, the family had to travel separately with the unpleasant experience of facing the TTE with rude conduct and that, during the return journey also on 15.06.2014, the same coach was not attached, thereby, his family was given accommodation of only Middle and Upper Berths in another coach and further, his aged parents, who never used to travel in the non-AC coach, had to travel in the non-AC accommodation at middle and upper berth.  Thus, the allegation of the complainant is that he and his entire family suffered great amount of physical hardship and mental agony as an impact of OPs’ service deficiency at three points viz., alternate accommodation for two family members in a non-AC coach that separated the father and mother with each child resulting in a very unpleasant and horrible journey, facing the ordeal of troublesome enquiry by the Travelling Ticket Examiners, who allegedly displayed an impolite conduct that was felt bad  in the midst of co-passengers and, during the return journey, allotment of only upper and middle berths in the alternate AC Coach & similarly alternate accommodation given to the aged parents of the complainant in a non-AC Coach that rendered the entire journey a bitter trip.

             On the contrary, it is the stand of the OPs/Railways that detachment of the 3 tier AC Coach/B5 on both the trips was only due to operational reasons, hence, no service deficiency can be attributed to them on that score particularly when they had taken sincere efforts to provide alternative arrangement in the form of attaching a Sleeper Coach and in fact have given accommodation to the other family members.  Further, during the onward journey,  they made efforts to accommodate the entire family under the emergency quota, but, due to software problem, the same could not be done. Thus, there is hardly any scope to allege service deficiency in that segment. The TTEs conducted themselves in a proper and polite manner and performed only their duties by making a formal enquiry about identity which is exaggerated to be rude and rusty manner.  However, since the allegations emanated from a responsible person, the Administration enquired into the same and, in that course, statements have been received from the TTEs and the same are marked here as Exs.B4 and B5.  Further, the allegations levelled against the TTEs are only inflated in nature, hence, the same cannot be given any credence.  Similarly, during the return journey also, except change in coach, the complainant and his family were given the same berth accommodation only in the 3 tier AC Coach and his parents were also allotted the only available middle and upper berths in the sleeper coach.  Hence, once again, no service deficiency can be alleged against the Railways since diligent efforts were taken by them to ensure proper available accommodation against both the reserved bookings.

             7. In the light of the above rival submissions, the only issue that needs to be answered is -

             “as to whether any element of service deficiency is attributable to the Railways having regard to the series of allegations made by the complainant and, if so, to what relief, he is entitled to?”

 

             8. Regarding the allegation of inconvenience and hardship that resulted to the complainant and his family due to non-availability of reserved berth accommodation in B5 Coach that could not be attachable to the Train, the reason assigned by the Railways is that it was only due to sudden and unavoidable operational reasons.   More often than not, operational reasons of a vestibuled train are attributable to last minute maintenance/clearance issues of  the coach that are beyond reasonable control of the service-provider, for which, no fault can be attached to. It follows, no claim can be made against the Railways by a consumer over any inconvenience that resulted from operational reasons.  In this case, the Railways, by stating the operation reason, also detailed about the efforts taken by them to provide alternate coach wherein the other two family members of the complainant were accommodated.  It is also their specific stand that the attempts made by them to accommodate the entire family under the emergency quota could not fructify due to software problem.   The  grievance of the complainant that there was no prior information about the detachment of B5 coach, because of which, he was shuttled between one end to the other in affirming the drastic change cannot hold water in view of the explanation given by the Deputy Station Master for Public Complaint under Ex.B2, dated 26.06.2014, which runs to the effect that, after replacement of the AC coach in question with a Sleeper Coach, a special announcement over change of coach was made from 19.00 Hours to 21.00 Hours for passengers’ guidance.  The further grievance of the complainant being that he was not given prior intimation over SMS about the development cannot be considered positively in the absence of any single averment in the complaint or a mentioning therein to the effect that, in the ticket reservation form, he furnished the mobile number enabling the railways to apprise him of any change or development in the travel schedule. Even as per the original allotment, all the four family members were not given berths in the same Coach since two were allotted berths in B5 and the others in B3.  As such, the grievance that the family got separated only due to the reshuffling does not merit consideration.  Further, the complainant has not disputed the stand of the Railways that, during the return journey, after attaching a sleeper coach to accommodate the passengers of B5 Coach, it was specifically announced to the passengers concerned that if they desire, the tickets could be cancelled for which full refund would be given or else to travel in the sleeper coach and get refund of the difference in fare, on the basis of the Lower Class Certificate issued by the TTE.   Therefore, having opted to travel in the sleeper coach, the complainant cannot make any claim on the ground that his parents were made to suffer in the journey with allotment of upper and middle berth in the non-AC Coach.  It is also the grievance of the complainant that, during the return journey, by allotment of alternate accommodation at middle and upper berths, he and his wife were put to much inconvenience.  The same cannot be appreciated for the same reason that, even as per the original position of allotment in the reserved ticket marked as Ex.A2, dated 20.05.2014, what was allotted is two middle berths and two upper berths in the B5 coach.  When berths with same position were allotted in B4 coach of 3 tier AC, there is no point at all in expressing any grievance over the same. Pausing here, it must also be pointed out that the harsh language employed in the complaint against the TTEs is absolutely unwarranted.  No matter the extent of prejudice and hardship, the parties while making the respective claims and counter-claims before a judicial or quasi-judicial forum should be mindful not transgress the bounds of presentation by using any offensive term that would obviously hurt the other side.  When the complainant himself is said to be a victim of alleged rude behavior, it is not expected of him to counter-act in the same way.    Now, coming to the remaining point viz., impolite and rude conduct exhibited by the TTEs towards the complainant, at the outset, it is but apt to quote below the following statement from Ex.B6, dated 05.08.2014, which is the reply given to the complainant by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of the Railways/Salem Division:-

              “ … The Ticket Examiner has sought confirmation about the child travelling in the train so as to issue Lower class certificate to enable you to get refund after reaching the destination.  However based on your statement, both the employees have been counseled and their performance will be monitored for remedial action.  …”                           (emphasis supplied)

The above details given by the high ranking official of the Railways to the effect that counselling was given to both the TTEs and that their performance would be monitored for “remedial action” shall not be looked at in a casual manner rather in the factual background as portrayed in the complaint.  Although the Railways have filed the statements of the TTEs under Exs.B4 & B5, dated 26.06.2014 and 25.06.2014 respectively, which nowhere deal with the allegations made against their conduct, considering the gravity of the allegations made by the complainant, in all fairness, the Railways should have taken steps to file individual affidavits of the TTEs concerned before this Commission,  particularly on  the allegation of rude behavior exhibited by them towards the complainant and his wife and, if not, they should have initiated steps to offer both the TTEs for examination/cross-examination; but, they failed to do so.  Merely filing statement of the TTEs by the Railways is not sufficient, for, it is common knowledge that often, nobody would accept their own mistake.  In the absence of any individual affidavit adduced by the Railways from the TTEs concerned, we have no option but to accept the version of the complainant in that regard.  We are able to clearly infer veracity in the allegation against the TTES from the associated words found in the reply under Ex.B6 which are so plain and clear that they would be monitored for ‘remedial action’.  If really the Railways themselves accepted the explanation of the TTEs that, without exhibiting any impolite behavior, they only made a routine enquiry about identity and, as such, accepted their respective statements given in Exs.B4 & B5, they would not have conveyed otherwise in the reply under Ex.B6 that the performance of the TTEs would be monitored for remedial action. In the factual context presented, the purpose behind remedial action seems to be only to correct a ‘performance deficiency’ on the part of the TTEs through proper monitoring.  Therefore, after thoroughly examining the facts and circumstances from all angles, we are of the considered view that, definitely, the complainant would have suffered serious mental agony and hardship by the conduct of the TTEs, who are under the service of the Railways and thus, the latter is vicariously liable for the service deficiency on their part. Though service deficiency is attributed to the Railways on various aspects,  since we find it substantiated from one single perspective as adverted above, we are of the view that awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) along with costs of Rs.10,000/- would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

 

             9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, by directing the OPs/Railways to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as litigation expenses and also to refund the difference in fare, if not already paid, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and any default in compliance would attract interest on the aforesaid sum @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment.

    

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                      R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

•       Date            Description of Documents

Ex.A1       13.05.2014   Official Memorandum – High Court, Madras

Ex.A2       20.05.2014   Journey cum Reservation Tickets

Ex.A3       12.06.2014   Application for Emergency Quota

Ex.A4       15.06.2014   Refund Certificate

Ex.A5       17.06.2014     Paper News

Ex.A6       19.06.2014     Legal Notice by complainant with AD Cards

Ex.A7       27.06.2014   Letter with Pay Order of Opposite Party

Ex.A8       02.07.2014     Paper News

Ex.A9       03.08.214     Bus Tickets

Ex.A10     05.08.2014   Reply from Opposite Party.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPs

 

•       Date            Description of Documents

Ex.B1               26.06.2014           Re-allotment information

Ex.B2               26.06.2014          Explanation for public complaint by Dy. Station Manager, CBE.

Ex.B3               27.06.2014          Pay Order (coaching refunds)

Ex.B4               26.06.2014          Statement by TTE.S.Dinesh Kumar

Ex.B5               25.06.2014           Statement by TTE-C.Mohan

Ex.B6               05.08.2014          Reply by the Railways to the Legal Notice of the complainant.

 

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                             R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/JUNE/2022.