Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/162/2015

Mr.V.S.Dixit - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Narasimhan

23 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  28.10.2015

                                                               Order pronounced on:  23 01 2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 23^rd   DAY OF JANUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.162/2015

 

Mr.V.S.Dixit,

S/o R.S.Sundar Dixit,

Residing at No.291,

Vanchinathan Street,

Sendil Nagar,

Thirumullai Voil,

Chennai 600 062.

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.The General Manager,

Southern Railway,

Chennai Central,

Chennai – 79.

 

2.The Assistant Commercial Manager,

Southern Railway,

Chennai Central,

Chennai – 79.

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                         : Sri.Narasimhan

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                     :Mr. K.Muthamil Raja

 

 

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant  booked ticket for four persons including himself in Garib Rath train (train No.12611 ) from Chennai to Jhansi vide PNR. No.456-0460145 which ended in waiting list as W/L-129,130,131 &132 and  thereafter  it was confirmed and they were allotted in GD-2 coach. Total number of coaches are D1 to D15. GD-2 is a Generator car which is meant for the disabled persons.  However the caterers pre-occupied the coach and dumped  with luggage and edible items. This coach consists of only four berths infested with cockroaches wherein the caterers  also prepare food.  When the complainant asked the in charge of the coach to vacate the accumulated things on the berth, he refused to do so. Due to preparation of food across the passage the complainant and his family suffered great inconvenience and hardship. At Vijayawada station TTR came and collected the differential fare from the complainant and the complainant reported to him which also ended with nil result. Before departure of the train the complainant  approached  the  concerned authority  for refund of  fare due to inconvenience caused to them.  The complainant  was entitled to get a meager amount only. None of the coach attenders  attended  to extend the benefits of the provision of pillows and blankets despite the demand was made. During the correspondence it was assured to pass suitable orders but it was not followed.  Hence the complaint.

 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

            The complaint  is not maintainable and barred by limitation under 24A of the Act. As per the complaint cause of action arose on 02.02.2013 when the complainant travelled in  Garib Rath Express and allegedly expressed the problems but the present complaint was filed only on 28.10.2015. Hence the complainant is not sustainable. Since 14 bogies were filled up and the complainant was allotted GD-2- AC coach and the said coach is an Ac coach for disabled persons which is very spacious and has 2-tier berths. There is no difference in the level of comfort or in cooling effect when compared to other coaches. The generator is only used during emergency and the noise will not be heard inside. The disabled coach is not used for preparing food. There is no pantry Car in Garib Rath train. The authorized catering contractor will take orders from passengers and supply food to the passengers obtained from the kitchens in the enroute station. Railways have provided Almirahs with  hot boxes near the coach doors for stocking food packets. The allegation of cockroaches presence in the train is false. The coach is completely rid of any pests since the train is disinfected in the Basin bridge coach yard. Since the said train fare is less than two thirds of the fare for the A/C classes in other trains, the free bedding is not provided to the passengers. The passengers are opted to book for bedrolls at the time of booking ticket and to pay the charges. Since the complainant had not paid the charges, bedrolls were not provided to them. Hence the complainant’s claim is unsustainable and the complaint is to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

     1.Whether the complaint is barred by Limitation?

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

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

4. POINT NO :1 

          The alleged deficiency in service against opposite parties  in the complaint is admittedly presented on 28 10.2015. The alleged incident is said to have happened only in the month of January 2013. The complainant ought to have filed on or before the month of January 2015 but it was filed only in the month October 2015. No delay excuse petition was filed by the complainant.  Straight away the complainant had filed this complaint after the limitation time is over.  Later correspondence will not save the limitation for filing the complaint as put forth on the side of the Complainant.

                  The complainant  had submitted the following citation

R.Jaivel, President, Metturpatti Multi Purpose workers Industrial

Co-operative Society Ltd

VS

State of Tamil Nadu

(CRP (NPD) 821/2002)

In the above case the complaint was made on 30.11.1998 and the application should have been occurred on 30.11.1996 and there was  a money dealings  arose out of an agreement and there was an acknowledgment of liability on 09.12.1996. Therefore the extension of  limitation was pointed out  and it is not applicable to the present case before us so far as the facts and circumstances are concerned. Therefore as per section 24 (a) of the act the complaint is barred by Limitation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

05. POINT NO.2:

             The opposite parties  have submitted a  Commercial Circular No.45 of 2009 by Government of  India  Ministry of railways to show  the existing rule that unutilized accommodation  in the coaches earmarked  for  handicapped persons in Garib  Rath  Express should be realized to RAC/Waitlisted passengers at the time of preparation of charts. Even though some documents are marked by the complainant on his side in view of the answer in point No.1as the complaint fails because it is barred by limitation. Hence  point No.2 is not necessarily  to be discussed.

06. POINT NO.3:

          It is decided as the complaint fails as it is  barred by Limitation the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd  day of January 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 12.02.2013                   Journey Ticket

Ex.A2 dated 12.02.2013                   Video-CD

Ex.A3 dated 12.03.2013                   Excess fee receipt

Ex.A4 dated 29.01.2015                   Notice by complainant to opposite party

Ex.A5 dated 12.02.2015                   Reply notice by opposite party to complainant

Ex.A6 dated 29.09.2006                   Ministry of railways circular    

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

                                                …… NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT