DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th  day of April 2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                 Date of filing:  29/08/2017

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

(C.C.No.126/2017)

T.V.Sreeprakash,

S/o Bharatha Pisharody,

‘Bharat’, 19 miles,

Sreeramakrishna Nagar,

Ottappalam.                                                                     -        Complainant

(By Adv.Viju.K.Raphel)

 V/s

The General Manager,                                                       -        Opposite party

Southern Railway,

Chennai.

(By Adv.T.R.Rajagopalan)

                                                          O R D E R

By Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

          The case of the complainant is briefly stated as follows.

          The complainant availed the service of the Southern Railway for travelling by train no.06037, Chennai-Quilon Express on 11.05.2017 in 1^st class AC in cabin A.  According to the complainant, the complainant boarded the above train at Chennai Central for Palakkad Junction paying Rs.5,130/- towards train fare from Chennai Central to Palakkad Junction.  According to the complainant, soon after boarding the train it was found that the AC was not working and complaints were made to the TTE and the AC mechanic of the coach; though efforts were made by them to repair the AC but not successful.  Complainant was forced to use fans only and since windows were covered by glass, there was no air circulation and complainant was unable to sleep throughout the night.  According to the complainant, the entire journey was uncomfortable and the opposite party failed to ensure comfortable travel to the passengers which caused defective service on the part of the opposite party, despite having taken huge service charge from the complainant by the opposite party.  The complainant sent a complaint on 12.05.2017 to the opposite party requesting him to refund the ticket fare for providing defective service and the reply from the opposite party was that there was less cooling complaint in 1^st AC coach due to PPCP-system partial choke and the coach temperature was maintained 26^oc to 25⁰c and the coach was detached from the rake for attending on reaching base depot.  The grievance of the complainant is that the AC was not functioning totally, and he was forced to depend on fans only and even natural air was not available because, the windows of the coach were sealed with glass.  The base depot was Palakkad junction where the complainant had to get down.  Hence complainant prays to the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to refund the ticket fare of Rs.4,500/- and to compensate Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for providing defective service and causing mental agony to him. 

          The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party to enter appearance and file version.  In the version filed on behalf of the opposite party, opposite party’s counsel contends that all the allegations in the complaint except those specifically admitted are denied by the opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable.  Opposite party’s counsel further contends that there is no cause of action for the complainant because, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Southern Railway administration.  When the train left Chennai Central, the AC system failed to function due to technical problems.  The concerned TTE tried to rectify the failed AC system but did not succeed, but the railway staff maintained the coach temperature at 26^oc to 25⁰c, the failure was duly attended to on arrival of the train at the base depot.  The allegation in the complaint that complainant’s journey was uncomfortable is baseless, because, the temperature was maintained at 26⁰c to 25⁰c.  Opposite party also contends that railway staff took all efforts and there was no negligence on their part.  Hence, opposite party prays to the Forum to dismiss the complaint with cost to the opposite party. 

          Complainant and opposite party filed chief affidavits.  Exts.A1 to A5 were marked from the side of the complainant.  No documents were marked from the side of the opposite party.  Complainant was also heard.

            The following issues are considered in this case.

1. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?
2. If so, the relief and cost allowable to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

The complainant travelled by train no.06037 Chennai-Quilon Express on 11.05.2017 in AC 1^st class from Chennai Central to Palakkad Junction.  The electronic reservation slip through IRCTC eticketing service is marked as Ext.A1 which indicates date of journey, date and time of booking, date of boarding, class, boarding at, reservation upto etc.  The AC in the train compartment in which complainant boarded was not functioning properly inspite of efforts made by the TTE and the AC mechanic to repair the AC system.  According to the complainant, the entire journey was uncomfortable.  The complainant sent a complaint on 12.05.2017, the copy of the complaint letter dated.12.05.2017 to the opposite party is marked as Ext.A2 which requests the opposite party to refund the eligible amount to the complainant as compensation.  In the reply letter dated.14.07.2017 sent by the opposite party to the complainant the remarks were offered, namely, less cooling complaint in 1^st AC coach, the coach temperature maintained between 26⁰c to 25⁰c by AC accompanying staff, the failure attended on arrival of the train at the base depot.  This reply letter was marked as Ext.A3.  Another letter was sent by the complainant to Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer, Chennai Electrical Branch, Southern Railway, Chennai requesting him to do favourable steps.  This letter is marked as Ext.A4.  The communication received from opposite party dated.27.07.2017 is marked as Ext.A5 which states that the defective coach was detached from the rake on arrival of the particular train at the base depot and the in charge engineer was directed to ensure proper working condition of AC equipment during maintenance.  In the opposite party’s version, opposite party agrees to the allegation in the complaint that the AC system was not properly working after the train left Chennai Central.  According to the opposite party, it was due to mechanical defect in the AC system.  The TTE of the coach tried to rectify the defect but without success.  Hence, the railway staff in charge of the coach maintained the temperature between 26⁰c and 25⁰c instead of 23⁰c and 25⁰c.  Hence, opposite party contends that complainant’s allegation that he suffered discomfort is not correct and no other passengers raised any complaint; when the train reached the next station where mechanics were available, the defect was rectified.  Hence, opposite party prays that no deficiency in service on the part of the railways or its employees occurred.  Hence, complaint may be dismissed with cost. 

From the affidavits and other documentary evidences filed before this Forum, we understand that since the AC in the train compartment (1^st class AC in cabin A) in which complainant and his wife travelled on 11.05.2017 from Chennai Central to Palakkad Junction was not functioning properly; the journey of the complainant was uncomfortable to him and the opposite party also admits that the AC system was not properly functioning in the concerned train (06037 Chennai – Quilon Express) from Chennai Central to Quilon since it left Chennai Central station.  Hence, we observe that, opposite party is seen to have admitted deficiency in service on their part by not removing the defective coach and not attaching a coach which is in perfect running condition in all respects in Chennai Central itself.  The opposite party has also admitted the presence of defective AC system in the disputed AC coach in which complainant and his wife have travelled from Chennai Central to Palakkad junction.  “Admitted facts need not be proved”.  Hence, we view that inspite of the opposite party having collected in advance huge train fare from the complainant for his train travel from Chennai Central to Palakkad Junction, the opposite party is seen not to have ensured “sukhayatra” to the complainant and his wife.  In the light of the above we observe that deficiency in service has occurred from the part of the opposite party.  In the result, the complaint is allowed. 

We order the opposite party to refund to the complainant the difference between the 1^st class AC fare paid by the complainant for his and his wife’s travel from Chennai Central to Palakkad Junction and the 2^nd sleeper class fare, which is  Rs.4,520/- (Rupees four thousand five hundred and twenty only); in addition, opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant by way of compensation for mental agony suffered by him and his wife resulting from their uncomfortable train travel in the defective coach from Chennai Central to Palakkad Junction plus Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards cost of proceedings incurred by the complainant. 

This order shall be executed within one month from the date of this order, otherwise complainant is also entitled to interest at 9% p.a on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of April 2018.

                       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          -  Photocopy of electronic Reservation Slip (Personal User) issued by IRCTC

   eticketing service

Ext.A2          -  Photocopy of complaint letter dated.12.05.2017 sent by the complainant   

             to opposite party

Ext.A3          -  Photocopy of reply dated.14.07.2017 sent by Deputy CEE/GS/HQ of

              Southern Railway to the complainant

Ext.A4          -  Copy of letter sent by the complainant to Deputy CEE, SR Head Quarters

             Office, Chennai branch, Chennai

Ext.A5          -  Copy of communication letter dated.27.07.2017 sent by Executive Assistant

    to DRM, Public Grievance Cell, DRM’s Office, Chennai Division, Chennai to

    the complainant

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost

          Rs.3,000/-