Kerala

StateCommission

A/475/2018

V C JANARDHANAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

PARTY IN PERSON

25 Sep 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 475/18

 JUDGMENT DATED:25.09.2018

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                          : MEMBER

 

V.C. Janardhanan,

S/o late B.K. Menon, VI/205,

Shantashree, Keralassery,

Pin-678 641, Palakkad.                                                      : APPELLANT

                                                                                               

Vs. 

1. The General Manager,

Southern Railway,

Chennai-670 001.

 

2. The Divisional Manager (Commerce),

Palakkad Division, Southern Railway,

Palakkad-678 002.

 

3. The Divisional Manager,

Thiruvananthapuram Division,

Southern Railway, TVM-695 002.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

4. Travelling Ticket Examiner (Name not known),

Sleeper Coach, S.5, Train No.16343 on 3.10.2016,

C/o Divisional Commercial Manager,

TVPM Divn., TVPM-695 002.

 

5. Travelling Ticket Examiner (Name not known),

Sleeper Coach, S.7, Train No.16343 on 3.10.2016,

C/o Divisional Commercial Manager,

Palakkad Divn., Palakkad-678 002.

 

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

 

        Complainant in CC.06/17 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad, for short the district forum, has filed this appeal challenging the Order dated 30.5.2018 of the Forum dismissing his complaint imposing cost of Rs.2000/- to the opposite party.

2.     Complainant had booked a Tatkal ticket on 2.10.2016 for journey in train No.16343, Amritha Express on 3.10.2016 by sleeper class from Kottayam to Ottapalam.  The ticket issued providing a berth in coach No.S.5 of the train to the complainant was seen allotted to another person when the complainant boarded the train and he was put to severe inconvenience and had to pay excess amount to have a berth in another coach of the train, was his case to impute deficiency in service against the opposite parties to claim compensation. His claim was resisted by the opposite parties contending that e-ticket taken by the complainant was for journey from Kottayam in the train with departure time at 01.18am on 3.10.2016.  Complainant who was under the mistaken belief that the ticket taken was for the journey with departure time at 01.18 am on 4.10.2016 boarded that train.  Opposite parties produced documents to show that in the train which departed at 01.18 am on 3.10.2016 from Kottayam in terms of the e-ticket taken by the appellant a berth had been allotted to him in berth No.44 in coach No.55 and that berth remained vacant since the complainant failed to conduct the journey.  Copy of the charts of the train No.16343 on 3.10.2016 and 4.10.2016 were produced by the opposite parties to substantiate their case.

3.     The lower forum appreciating the materials found that the e-ticket taken by the complainant, and produced, provided for reserved berth in train No.16343 with departing time at 01.18 am on 3.10.2016 and the complainant without taking note of that train boarded that train next day, 4.10.2016, at 01.18 am from Kottayam.  Deficiency in service imputed against the opposite parties was found to be meritless and the prosecution of the consumer complaint according to Forum, amounted to causing harassment and injury to the opposite parties.  In that view of the matter dismissing the complaint, complainant was directed to pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the opposite parties.

4.     Aggrieved by that order complainant has preferred this appeal.

5.     We heard the counsel for the complainant on the admissibility of the appeal.  Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the forum below dismissed his complaint mis-construing the facts involved and evidence led in the case.  To our query learned counsel for the appellant submitted that e-ticket for the journey was booked by him under tatkal at 11.45am on 2.10.2016.  Copy of the e-ticket issued for the journey, the original of which has been exhibited as A1, was handed over for perusal by the complainant.  The ticket clearly showed it was for the journey in train No.16343, Amritha Express from Kottayam to Ottapalam with departure time at 01.48 am on 3.10.2016.  Complainant admittedly boarded the above train on the next day from Kottayam at 01.18 am.  Clearly he was under the mistaken belief that the ticket enabled him to travel in the train which departed from Kottayam at 01.18 am on 4.10.2016.  The date of journey shown in the ticket issued was overlooked by him and that led to forming of a wrong conclusion that the ticket enabled him to travel on 4.10.2016.  In this connection what is tatkal ticket reservation has to be noted.  Tatkal ticket reservation provided reservation to passengers who have to undertake a train journey at short notice. Such ticket can be booked one day in advance including the date of journey from the originating station.  So when complainant had booked the ticket under tatkal at 11.45 am on 2.10.2016 as conceded he could have asked for reservation of a seat only for journey on 3.10.2016 and not on 4.10.2016.  Despite the opposite parties producing the charts and establishing its defense that a berth had been reserved for him in the train which departed at 01.18am on 3.10.2016 complainant persisted with the complaint and prosecuted the opposite parties.  In such situation the lower forum holding that the complaint was frivolous and it amounted to harassment of opposite parties directed for payment of cost is Rs.2000/- to them and dismissed the complaint.  We do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the lower forum, and the appeal deserves only to be dismissed as not admitted.  We do so.

 

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT. R : MEMBER

 

VL.