DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the      29^th   day of September,  2022

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                          

                      :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                              Date of Filing: 02/02/2018    

     CC/21/2018

1.Dr.Sarika,

   W/o.Dr.Nithin Peter,

   Sree Hari (Navayath House) Varode,

   Ottappalam, Palakkad- 679 102.

2.Nithin Peter,

   S/o.K M Peter., 

   Karimbanakuzhiyil  House, Chakkittappara P.O,

   Calicut- 673 526.

    (By Adv. M Radhika)                                                                          -     Complainants

                                                                                  Vs

1. The General Manager,

       Southern Railways Regional Railway Board,

Park Town, Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600 003.

2.    The General Manager,

       Eastern Railways Regional Railway Board,

       Fairley Place, NS Road, Kolkota,

              West Bengal- 700 001.

3.   The General Manager,

       South-Eastern Railways Regional Railway Board,

Chakradharpur,

Jharkhand- 833 102.

       4.   Additional Divisional Railway Manager

             Thiruvananthapuram, Southern Railways, Thampanoor,

             Thiruvananthapuram-695 036.      

       5.  The General Manager,

             Sothern Railways, Park Town,

             Chennai, Tamil Nadu 6000 003.                                         -           Opposite parties

(OPs by Adv. S T Suresh)

O R D E R 

By Smt.Vidya A., Member

Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

1. The complainants booked sleeper class tickets in Train No.02507, Trivandrum-Howrah Express for travelling from Palakkad Junction to Chennai Central station.  The berths allotted to the complainant’s were 69 and 70, middle and upper berths respectively.  The train was late by half an hour and reached Palakkad Junction at 12.20 am on 06.09.2017 instead of the scheduled time 11.50 pm on 05.09.2017.  When they entered their compartment, it was over crowded  with unreserved passengers.  They found that the upper berth No.70 allotted to the 2^nd complainant was occupied by 3 passengers and they did not move from the berth in spite of requests.  They showed the complainants their general ticket and another receipt issued by the TTE for additional payment towards berth.  Further they noticed that both the chains of berth No.69 were broken and it could not be put in the sleeping position.

The complainants took up the matter with the opposite party in the number given in the internet.  The opposite parties informed that since the train had left the Palakkad station, they  cannot do anything and directed them to contact Railway Protection Force (RPF) in Tamil Nadu.  TTE was not available during the entire duration of the journey.  Eventhough they contacted RPF  Coimbatore after much struggle, they failed to do anything to solve the issue.  RPF, Thirupur station also failed to do anything to alleviate the problem.

The complainants did not have place to sit or rest and were mentally shocked by the situation in the train.  They feared about their lives, loss of certificates and other valuables they were carrying.  The 1^st  complainant was travelling to attend the convocation ceremony in the Madras Vetinary College and both the complainants were totally exhausted because of their health issues and mental trauma.

The compartment allotted to the complainants  were over crowded with passengers than the expected number  with around 200 passengers in place of 72 as per records in violation of the Railway rules and norms.

The complainants had to spend the whole night without sleep, rest or safety.  They were compelled to stand in the passage way of the compartments trying to contact the authorities for help.    The  complainants filed complaint to the 1^st opposite party on 06.09.2017 but they did nothing and send a reply letter dated 11.12.2017 stating that TTES in that train work under 4^th opposite party and the complaint is forwarded to them for further action.  All these happened because of the Deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice adopted by the opposite parties.  So this complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.11 lakhs (with interest) under various heads as compensation for their Deficiency in service

 and losses suffered by the complainants on account of that and to pay the cost of the complaint and other reliefs as the Commission thinks fit to grant.

2.        After admitting complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties.  They entered             

               appearance and filed their version.

3.    Pleadings of the opposite parties 1 to 4 in their version.

  They contend that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Since in any proceedings against Railways, Union of India represented by the concerned General Manager has to be impleaded.  Further it is defective for misjoinder of unnecessary parties.  All the allegations in the complaint regarding Deficiency in service arise only at Palakkad Junction under Southern Railway ie the 1^st opposite party.  Hence opposite parties 2 to 4 are unnecessary parties.

The allegations against the TTE are denied.  Usually trains towards North-Eastern States are overcrowded than any other trains because of the traffic of immigrant laborers from North-Eastern states.  Due to severe flood in North-Eastern states, all train services towards that region  were cancelled for nearly two weeks prior to the date of  journey mentioned in the complaint.  After restoration of train service, there were heavy outflow of passengers to Nother-Earstern states.  There were heavy wait-listed passengers in addition to the over whelming second class passengers.  The TTE made all possible efforts to vacate wait listed passengers who intruded into  reserved coaches with the assistance of RPF personnel.  All unreserved coaches became jam-packed forcing wait listed passengers to intrude into corridoors of reserved coaches inspite  of all earnest efforts to evict them.

When the train reached Palakkad Junction, the concerned TTE in the train was very much available in front of S 3 coach to accommodate the passengers joining from Palakkad Junction.  As the train left the Palakkad Junction, the TTE went to check the passengers boarded from there, but could not find the passengers reserved for berths No. 69 & 70. Trivandrum Depot TTE who was in charge of S 3 coach was relieved from duty when the train reached Coimbatore Junction and chart was handed over to the TTE joining from there.  They denied the allegations in the complaint regarding selling of berths for additional money by the TTE and the condition of berth No.69 with broken chain making it  impossible for sleeping position.  In that train there were lot of reserved passengers and the opposite parties  did not receive any such complaint regarding their Deficiency in service.  There is no Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the damages claimed are excessive without any basis.  So they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

4.            Subsequently 5^th opposite party was impleaded on the basis of the contentions raised by            opposite parties 1 to 4 in their version.  They adopted the contentions raised by the other                opposite parties and denied the allegation of Deficiency in service on their part

                and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.            From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration.

                1.Whether the  compartment in which the complainants travelled were crowded, denying

                    the complainants the benefit of reservation?

                2.Whether there is any Deficiency in service / Unfair Trade Practice  on the part of the

                    opposite parties?

                3.Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs claimed?

                4.Reliefs, if any as cost of compensation.

6.            The complainants filed proof affidavit in Evidence and Ext A1 to A7 marked from their side.   Ext A4 is a series of 5 photographs and A5 is CD supported by Sec 65B certificate under Indian Evidence Act. 

                The 2^nd complainant was examined as PW1.  The opposite parties also filed their proof

                affidavit and Ext B1 marked.  The Chief Ticket Examiner, Trivandrum Division, Southern

               Railway was examined as DW1 and evidence closed.  Both parties filed notes of arguments

               and they were heard.

       Points 1 & 2

7.            The complaint averment is that complainants reserved sleeper tickets in Train No 02507,

                Trivandrum-Howrah Express for travelling from Palakkad Junction to Chennai Central.  The

                date of journey was 05/09/2017 and 06/09/2017.  They produced the original ticket which is

                marked as Ext.A1.

8.            As per the complainants, the train reached Palakkad Junction at 12.20 am on 06.09.2017

                instead of the scheduled time of 11.50 p.m  on 05.09.2017.   The complainants’ main

                grievance is that when they entered their allotted compartment,  S 3 coach, the entire compartment was over crowded with un-reserved passengers occupying full space.  The             reserved compartment had the appearance of a general unreserved compartment.

9.            The seat/berth allotted to the complainants were 69 & 70 as seen from Ext A1.  The 2^nd

                complainant contended that the berth No.70 allotted to him was occupied by 3 passengers

                and they did not move from the reserved berth inspite of requests and showed their general

                ticket with another receipt issued by TTE for additional payment towards berth.

10.          The berth/seat No. 69 allotted to the 1^st complainant could not be put in sleeping position

                due to the fault/breaking of the supporting chains.  The complainants produced the

                photographs showing this which were marked as Ext A4 (series) and CD marked as Ext A5. 

              The photographs and CD shows the complainant’s contention to be correct.

11.          The opposite parties in their version admitted that the trains were over crowded during the

                period mentioned in the complaint.  The opposite parties  contended that usually trains

                towards North-Eastern states are overcrowded than any other trains because of the traffic

                of immigrant labourers.  Further due to severe flood in North-Eastern states all train services

                towards that region were cancelled for nearly two weeks prior to the date of journey

                mentioned in the complaint.  After restoration of the trains there was heavy out flow of

                passengers and all unreserved coaches became full, and this made wait listed passengers to

                intrude into corridors of reserved coaches.  The TTE made all possible efforts to vacate them.

12.          So they themselves admitted that the trains were over crowed with wait listed passengers.  But they denied the averment in the complaint regarding the selling of the berth by TTE for additional amount.  The opposite parties’ contention is that when the TTE checked the passengers  who boarded from Palakkad,  he could not find the passengers reserved for berths 69 and 70 of  S 3 coach at their respective seats.

13.            The TTE (Now Chief Ticket Inspector) who was in charge from Thiruvananthapuram to Coimbatore was examined as DW1.  The reservation chart which is marked as Ext B1 contains remarks by the TTE as NT and RAC.  On examination, the TTE explained that NT means “Not turned “and RAC means “Reservation against cancellation”.  As per his deposition.  Rm³ sN¡v sN¿p¶ kab¯v Cu tIknse ]cmXn¡mcmb bm{X¡msc I­n«nÃ.  Ext B1 sâ 4þmw t]Pn 69. 70 Fs¶gpXnb \¼dnsâ sskUnembn F³ Sn F¶v t\m«v sNbvXn«nÃmsb¶p ]dªm icnbmWv.  AXv amÀ¡v sN¿m¯Xv ASp¯ tÌj\n IqSn t\m¡nbn«p am{Xta dn Atem«v sN¿m³ ]äpIbpffp F¶Xv sIm­mWv Rm³ lmPcm¡nb dnkÀthj³ NmÀ«v {]Imcw ]cmXn¡mcpsS t]cnsâ sskUn F³ Sn F¶v t\m«v sNbvXn«nÃmsb¶p ]dªm icnbmWv.

He further deposed tImb¼¯qcn \n.¶v tIdp¶ SnSn sFbpw skbnw NmÀ«v h¨p Xs¶bmWv sN¡v sN¿p¶Xv.  AXmbXv 2 Sn Sn sF bpsS dnt¸mÀ«v sNbvX NmÀ«v BWv CsX¶p ]dªm icnbmWv.  dnkÀthj³ NmÀ«n \¼dpIfn h«an«v h¨ncn¡p¶Xv sIm­v Dt±in¡p¶Xv  ‘occupied’  F¶mWv.   AXmbXv ]me¡mSv \n¶v tImb¼¯qÀ¡v dnkÀhv sNbvXncn¡p¶Xv 15 t]cmWv F¶p ]dªm icnbmWv.  AXn 13 t]cpw   Rm³ sN¡v sN¿p¶ kab¯v CÃmbncp¶p.

14.       It shows that Ext B1 is the chart covering the entire journey and 2 TTI’s checked with the same chart as per their contention.  They have not marked ‘Not Turned’ against seat no. 69 & 70.  Further they did not put round to show that the seats are ‘occupied’.   This happened with 13 passengers who boarded from Palakkad and as per his deposition these 13 passengers did not occupy their seat when he checked.  So we are inclined to accept the contention put forward by the complainants that TTIs were not available and could not be found during the whole journey as it appears to be more convincing.

15.          This is a clear Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  It is their duty to make all possible efforts to arrange seats for the reserved passengers.  They cannot say lame excuses like overcrowding of compartments by wait listed passengers.  People reserve seats/berth in order to make their travel comfortable.  Here the complainants have suffered a lot as is seen from the evidences brought by them because of the Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Further the 2^nd complainant had some health issues as seen from Ext A6 & A7.    

                The complainants   made all earnest effort to contact the Railway personnel  (TTE and RPF) and get their assistance in solving the issue.  But no one was available to help them.  This would have definitely caused mental agony and physical strain.  So it is clear that Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not arranging the reserved seats/berths for complainants  had  made them suffer throughout the journey.   Further no action was seen taken by them even after receiving complaint from the complainants.  Even though the opposite parties denied any Deficiency in service on their part and stated that no complaints were received by them showing their Deficiency in service, they failed to prove by adducing cogent evidence that they made all efforts to solve the complainant’s issue.

16.          Further it is an Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite parties in allowing unreserved passengers to occupy the reserved seats and the absence of concerned authorities in the train to solve the issue.  Points 1 & 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.

              Points 3 &4

As answer to points 1 & 2 we found that opposite parties are liable for their Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice and liable to compensate the complainant for that.

Resultantly the complaint is allowed.   Even though the complainants suffered a  lot because of the Deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the compensation claimed under various heads seems to be exorbitant.  So considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay (1) Rs.50,000/- as compensation for their Deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice and Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.

The opposite parties shall   comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.250/- per month or part thereof by way of solatium to the complainant till date of final payment.

                Pronounced in open court on this the     29^th  day of September,  2022.

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                              President

                                                             Sd/-

    Vidya  A

                        Member   

                                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                                           Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                                  Member.

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Original reserved ticket  PNR No.4135707044 dated 05.09.2017.

Ext.A2 – Photocopy of complaint given by complainants  to the OP dated 06.09.2017.

Ext.A3 – Original reply letter issued by Southern Railway dated 11.12.2017.

Ext.A4 (series)–  Original photographs  (5 nos.).

Ext.A5 -  Original CD  (subject proof).

Ext.A6-  Original discharge summary dated 27.08.2013 issued from Baby Memorial Hospital

               Ltd.,Kozhikode to the 2^nd complainant.

Ext.A7 – Original discharge summary dated 07.11.2014 issued by Malabar Hospital, Calicut 2^nd

                complainant.

 Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 –  Original reservation chart of S 3 coach in train No.02507 Howrah Express dated 05.09.2017.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW 1 Nithin Peter

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  DW1 Padmakumar, Chief Ticket Examiner

 Chief  Ticket Inspector ,Thiruvananthapuram   Division , Southern Railway.

Cost :  20,000/-(Rupees Twenty  thousand only)