DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of February 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing:17/06/2016
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.85/2016)
1.Nishana.M
W/o.Mohammed Niaz
Muthalakulangara House,
East Ottapalam
Palakkad – 679 002
2.Mohammed Niaz
S/o.M.T.Usman
Muthalakulangara House,
East Ottapalam
Palakkad – 679 002
3.Master Nehan Niaz
Rep.by Next friends,
(Parents M.T.Niaz & Nishana M)
Muthalakulangara House,
East Ottapalam,
Palakkad – 679 002 - Complainants
(Adv.V.C.Janardhanan)
V/s
1.The General Manager
Southern Railway
Chennai – 670 001
2.The Chairman & Managing Director
Indian Rlys Catering & Tourism Corporation
New Delhi – 110 001
3.The Divisional Railway Manager
Palakkad Division,
Southern Railway
Palakkad – 678 002
4) The Divisional Railway Manager
Salem Division, Southern Railway,
Salem – 636 005
5.Imrat Lal Meena
Dy.CTI/BG-III/SL/MAS
Southern Railways,
Commercial Branch,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.T.R.Rajagopal)
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
The complainant alongwith her husband and a 3 year old son had undertaken a journey by train (Kochu veli Guwahati Express No.12515) with destination Alipurduar railway station. They had planned their journey in such a way that they are able to join the marriage ceremony and accompanying celebrations at the house of their close family friends, to be held on 24/12/2015, at Bhutan. They boarded the train from Palakkad Junction on 20/12/2015 at 8 hours. The PNR of the ticket is 411608683, which was a confirmed ticket on the date of journey and the berth allotted was in sleeper coach S13, were 46 & 47 respectively. They had even purchased return journey tickets and these had been notified as confirmed by the IRCTC vide their email communications. As the train came to halt at the platform No.3 at Palakkad Junction they rushed to the coach No.S13 which was found locked from inside barring the entry into it. On viewing through the windows it was realized that unreserved labour class passengers bond for north eastern states had already occupied available spaces including the aisles and passage making it impossible to enter into S13 and occupy the allotted berths to the complainant and her family. At Palakkad Junction, there was little time available to lodge a complaint to the proper concerned. However it was reported to RPF men on duty at the dying moments of the train departure. However, he expressed his inability and helplessness as it did not fall within his duty unless the TTE concerned reported the matter to vacate unreserved passengers. The TTE was absent in the train and no TTE did enter any of the reserved coaches until they reached Chennai Central, the next day around 06:00 hours. Finding it impossible to gain entry into sleeper coach S13, they managed to enter the sleeper coach S8, leaving the intervening reserved coaches as all these were equally filled with unauthorized passengers, with the help and corporation of some Sabarimala Pilgrims for whom the coach S8 appeared to be fully reserved. They were fortunate to find a berth with the magnanimity of a couple who were travelling Howrah. At the time of gaining entry into S8, the crowding in the said coach had not taken place as the reserved passengers were virtually blocking the entry of unauthorized passengers by stationing themselves at the doors. Soon after she realized that even with the access to S8, gaining a berth at the mercy of co-passengers is a discomfort. Her husband had alerted the railway authorities on the mobile number displayed in the compartment and also the railway police in this matter but was no use. The RPF station in charge at Palakkad stated that as the train is about to leave the palakkad junction, he cannot do anything and told to contact the Coimbatore helpline. The reply evinced from the authorities was that the TTE would call at Coimbatore station. However there was no meeting of the TTE either at Coimbatore junction, whereafter it was no consequence. They were unable to contact the station manager or anyone else due to the overcrowding, within the said time for the train at various stations and also apprehending the safety of living the small child and valuable personnel effects. The complainant further states that their discomfort in the journey was accentuated as it was impossible even to answer nature’s call due to blocking of passage by the unauthorized passengers /luggage to the toilet. It is indeed impossible for them to travel in the condition. Another 30- odd hours more to reach the destination station- ALIPURDUAR. Therefore, as the train halted at Chennai Central, they boarded down through the emergency door escaping from the nightmare of reserved journey. Her husband sought to cancel the journey midway by filing refund application. Thereafter they had to travel by air inorder to reach the destination in time and in good health which it appeared difficult for the reasons explained above. They had availed the air tickets from Chennai to Kolkata on 21/12/2015 and had to seek accommodation in lodge. They had to travel from Kolkata by train on 22/12/2015 and reached ALIPURDUAR on 23/12/2015 in the early morning. For the said travel, they had to board different trains as there was no reservation available an additional expenses were incurred infructuously on account of deficiency of service by the railways to the reserved passengers. The complainant submits that opposite parties are liable to compensate them for the deficiency of service and consequent additional expenses incurred by them in the course of their forward journey to the destination station to which reservation was contracted for.
After accepting the complaint the notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. OP entered appearance and filed version denying all allegations in the complaint. In this particular incident, the complainant had confirmed reservation in S13 coach, but she had boarded S8 coach which is an admitted fact. The train is having a scheduled stop at Palakkad for 5minutes the complainant had more than enough time to board the earmarked coach. It is due to the casualness of the complainant and family that they had boarded another coach and later got down at another station. In fact the complainant had no valid authority to travel in S8 coach either. Palakkad station is having coach indicator boards, electronic displays showing coach position and a station notice board, apart from full-fledged information centre for availing the correct information of the correct position of the S13 coach. Without verifying the information of the correct position of the S13 Coach, the complainant boarded S8 coach in which the passenger had no reservation at all. The effort needed to board S8 coach was the same as to board S13 coach. As per the complaint she did not get reservation in S13 coach where she had confirmed berths, but her case is that she did not get comfortable accommodation in S8 coach where other passengers had reserved accommodation. The inability to board the designated coach S13, might be due to her late turn up the boarding station. They had also never made a call to RPF security helpline number “182” or ‘9995040000’.
The Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF ,Palakkad conducted a comprehensive investigation in this case and stated that on 20/12/2015 train no.12515 arrived at Palakkad station on Platform No.3 at 20.03 hours and left at 20.08 hours. The RPF staff on platform duty at Palakkad had attended the S1 coach of the said train suo-mottu since it was found over crowed by unreserved/waitlisted passengers and removed them to the adjacent general coaches as far as possible within the brief halt period of the train at Palakkad. No complaint either in verbal or in written form from the passengers, TTE or phone message through security help line 182 was received by the RPF staff for this train on Palakkad. Similarly neither any written complaint nor any oral request was made to the coach TTEs of the coach NOs S8 and as routine measure to ensure the safety and security of the passengers and special attention is given only in cases where complaint is received. There was no deficiency and irresponsible attitude on the part of the railway as alleged in the complaint. Hence the complaint had to be dismissed.
The 2nd OP filed version to the effect that the complainant had not disclosed any deficiency of service against them and the 2nd OP is a corporation providing access the railway passenger reservation system through its server and internet connectivity to book the ticket through its website. Train operation is under the control of the concerned railway only. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and they may be exonerated.
The complainant as well as opposite parties filed their respective proof affidavits Ext. A1- A15 was marked (A2, A4, A14 series was marked with objection subject to proof) Ext. B1 to B4 was marked from the part of the opposite parties. Evidence was closed. Matter was heard.
The following issues are considered in this case are.
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties ?
2.If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1 & 2
We have perused documents as well as affidavit filed from both sides. From Ext.A1 to A3 it is evident that the complainants had obtained confirmed tickets through reservation by Guwahati Express from Palakkad to Alipurduar and had obtained permission from the Bhutan authorities for the stay for one week. The opposite party has produced the railway chart pertaining to 20/12/2015 which shows that they have been allotted confirmed berth at Seat No.45 & 46. The TTE has correctly endorsed those berths as “Not Turned up” (NT) and has subsequently after reasonable time has allotted the berth in favour of other RAC passengers in the same coach. They had also submitted that, even if the complainant had boarded in other coach, they could have promptly reached their allotted S13 coach through vestibule and informed the concerned TTE, then the confirmed berths would not have been allotted to RAC passengers. They had also produced the chart which clearly shows that several other passengers with varied age factor had boarded from Palakkad Railway station in S13 coach with berth No.8,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30 & 36. Hence the opposite parties states that the averment in the compliant that they could not board their S13 coach due to over crowding and closure of the doors are false. But it is evident from Ext.A4 & A14 that there was over crowding in this particular train on several occasions. Ext.A15 is the call register of the 2nd complainant which shows that they had tried to contact the railway authorities on six occasions. They had also stated that no TTE had turned up to S8 coach so as to control the crowd or to vacate the unreserved passengers. From Ext.A5 to A7 it is evident that the complainant had to discontinue their journey at Chennai and to seek another option for the continuance of their journey. From the above aspect it can be inferred that the complainants had suffered discomfort during their journey in the said train by which they had to board down at Chennai which had created much inconvenience and financial loss to the complainants.
In the above circumstances the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties No.1, 3,4 & 5 jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for the inconvenience and discomfort suffered by the complainant during their journey and also to refund an amount of Rs.4,511/- (Rupees Four thousand five hundred and eleven only) as the sleeper ticket charges vide PNR NO.4111608683 / 6347719912 / 6248719802 / 6247716204. We also direct the above opposite parties to refund the cost of air ticket amounting to Rs.18,585/- (Rupees Eighteen thousand five hundred and eighty five only) as expenses incurred on account of the denial of reserved accommodation in the S13 coach. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants is entitled to recover 9% interest per annum for the compensation and ticket charge amounts from the date of order, till realization. The 2nd opposite party is exonerated from the liability. There is no order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Booking confirmation by E ticket dtd.20/12/15 from PGT to NOQ
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Letter seeking permission from Regional Director, Dept.of
Immigration to visit Bhutan
Ext.A3 – Copy of e mail showing booking confirmation of tickets by IRCTC (2 nos)
Ext.A4 - Photographs showing the overcrowded S8 (also S13) coaches wherein
complainant’s travelled. (4 Nos)
Ext.A5 –E mail printout showing TDR request registered with coaching refund system,
IRTC to complainant
Ext.A6 – E mail print out showing reply dated 21/12/15 received from IRCTC in respect
of tickets cancelled by the complainant
Ext.A7 – Flight tickets by spicejet from Chennai to Kolkota
Ext.A8 – Cash memo No.737 of date for accommodation availed on 21/12/15 by the
the complainant and family at Imperial lodge
Ext.A9 – E mail print out showing booking confirmation
Ext.A10 - E mail print out showing booking confirmation and cancellation thereof by
IRCTC
Ext.A11 series – Replies received from Railway authorities with regards to details of
journey.
Ext.A12 series –RTI replies including Train reservation chart copies confirming the
tickets
Ext.A13 series –Lawyer notice dated 5/2/16 to opposite party alongwith
acknowledgement card
Ext.A14 series – Newspaper news (subject to proof)
Ext.A15 – Statement showing calls effected by the complainant to the Southern
Railway
Witness examined the side of complainant
PW1 – Nishana.M
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Copy of Lawyer notice issued to opposite party by complainant’s advocate
Ext.B2 – Reply to lawyer notice dated 16/3/16
Ext.B3 – Reply to lawyer notice dated 24/05/2016
Ext.B4 – Attested copy of acknowledgement card
Cost
No cost allowed.
