DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of May 2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                Date of filing:  10/01/2017

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

(C.C.No.06/2017)

V.C.Janardhanan,

S/o Late B.K.Menon,

Aadhaar No.392128016183,

“Shantashree” Keralassery (PO),

Palakkad Taluk/District – 678 641.                                      -        Complainant

(By Party in person)

 V/s

1.  The General Manager,

     Southern Railway, Chennai – 670 001.                           -        Opposite parties

2.  The Divisional General Manager (Commerce),

     Palakkad Division, Southern Railway,

     Palakkad – 678 002.

3.  The Divisional Railway Manager

     Thiruvananthapuram Division, Southern Railway,

     Thiruvananthapuram – 695 002.

4.  Travelling Ticket Examiner (Name Not Known),

     Sleeper Coach S-5,

     Train No.16343 on 03.10.2016,

     C/o Divisional Commercial Manager,

     Thiruvananthapuram Division,

     Thiruvananthapuram - 695002.

5.  Travelling Ticket Examiner (Name not known),

     Sleeper Coach S-7,

     Train No.16343 on 03.10.2016,

     C/o Divisional Commercial Manager,

     Palakkad Division,

     Palakkad – 678 002.

 (By Adv.T.R.Rajagopalan)

                                                          O R D E R

By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member

          The complainant had booked a TATKAL ticket on 02.10.2016 by train number 16343 (Amrita Express) with date of journey on 03.10.2016, by Sleeper Class, ex-Kottayam to Ottapalam.  The eticket with PNR No.4844318581 showing boarding point as Kottayam, allotted coach S5 and berth No.44 (LB) to the complainant stating that departure time from Kottayam as on 01.18 am.  The train reached the Kottayam station at 01.48 am.  On boarding on coach S5, the complainant was informed that the birth reserved for him was already allotted to another person and there is no vacant berth available.  The TTE informed that as per her record there is no person to board the S5 coach from Kottayam.  On reiterating his claim to travel in S5 coach, she informed the complainant that he is a ticketless passenger and should alight at the next station.  However, she asked him to wait and proceeded to consult the TTE in coach S7 and on her return requested him to move to S7 which he complied within the hope of accommodating him.  The reasons for rejection of his request for accommodation was turned on by the TTE’s for the reason that he boarded the S5 coach of the train with a date expired ticket.  The TTE at coach S7 also did not provide a reserved accommodation to the complainant but, required him to pay additional fare for not in possession of valid journey ticket.  On reaching Ernalulam North station an extra fare ticket was issued to him and Rs.390/- was paid therefore, allotting a berth No.39.  The TTE issued the ticket for the journey from Kottayam to Ottapalam stating “date expired ticket” as the reason for the extra fare ticket.  On returning home the complainant checked the details of the reservation chart under RTI provisions, so as to ascertain how the TATKAL eticket issued to him was not reflected in the chart at the time of preparation of the chart and how the name of another person was swapped therein.  The complainant alleges that he was asked to deposit fees plus service charge for the details, hence he preferred 1^st appeal which did not make any difference and the efforts thereafter were unresponsive.  The complainant further alleges that the denial of allotted confirmed berth to him booked on TATKAL not only amounts to deficiency of service but, also an infringement of the rules and regulations in addition to committing illegality.  He further states that his right to occupy the confirmed birth (No.44 LB) allotted to him was illegally denied to him swapping it to another, in violation of the extend rules – regulations.  This is injustice and amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant was unwarrantedly subject to avoidable inconveniences, personal discomfort and physical exhaustion attendant with additional and infractous expenditure, which are directly attributable to the deficiency in service by the opposite parties.  In the circumstances the complainant had approached before this Forum for the grievances suffered by him seeking a compensation of Rs.75,725/- for suffering the night mare of rail journey deliberately caused by the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.    

          Notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. 

          Opposite party entered appearance upon the notice from the Forum and filed their version denying all the allegation in the complaint.  They contend that the allegation in para 3 that TATKAL ticket booked by the complainant by train No.16343 for journey from Kottayam to Ottapalam on 03.10.16 is not correct.  The ticket was booked for travel from Kottayam to Ottapalam by the train which arrives at Kottayam station 01.22 hrs on 02.10.16.  The complainant has mistakenly understood the ticket has enabling him in traveling on 03.10.16.  In fact the chart maintained by the Railways for the train starting from Trivandrum on 01.10.16 and reaching Kottayam on 02.10.16 at 1.22 hrs will show that the berth No.44 was provided to the complainant in coach 85 and was kept vacant since the passenger did not travel.  The complainant thinking mistakenly that the ticket was for travelling from Kottayam to Ottapalam on 03.10.16 has gone to the station and found that berth No.44 in coach S5 is allotted to somebody else.  It was really a mistake committed by the complainant.  When the complainant represented the matter to the TTE they provided him an alternate accommodation after explaining to him the mistake committed by him.  There was no deficiency in service or any mistake committed by the staff of the Railways since the complainant is not entitled to get the berth allotted on the day he went to the station.  The railway staffs were perfectly justified in treating the complainant as a ticket-less traveler and collecting the charges from him.  The claim for damages for the alleged mental agony is also misconceived.  Then the complainant may be dismissed with cost. 

          Complainant filed IA 95/2017 for cause production of documents by the opposite party and to issue summons to the ticket examiner to be examined as a witness.  Opposite party produced document as per IA 95/2017.  Complainant as well as opposite party filed their respective chief affidavits.  Opposite parties filed an application as IA 195/2017 seeking permission to cross examine the complainant.  IA was allowed and complainant was cross examine as PW1.  Exts.A1 to A6 was marked from the side of the complainant.  Ext.B1 to B3 was marked from the side of the opposite parties.  Complainant filed another application seeking permission to cross examine opposite parties 2,4 & 5.  Applications was allowed but the opposite party filed another application to review the order as IA 348/17.  IA was heard.  It was viewed that the District Forum had no authority to review its on order.  Hence IA was dismissed.  Opposite party filed witness list along with an application to receive the same.  Opposite party was cross examined as DW1.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. 

The following issues that arise for consideration are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what are the relief and cost?

Issues No.1 & 2

          We have perused the documents as well as affidavits filed by the parties.  From Ext.A1 it is clear that the complainant had booked an e-ticket in his name for journey on 03.10.2016 from the Kottayam to Ottapalam by 16343 Amritha Express train on TATHKAL mode.  Obviously, the date of journey mentioned in the above ticket is as 03.10.2016.  From Ext.A2 it is viewed that the opposite party had issued excess fare ticket for the same train on 04.10.2016.  Hence, it is very much clear that, even though the complainant had booked the ticket for his journey on 03.10.2016, he really intended to travel only on 04.10.2016.  From Ext.B1 it is viewed that the complainant has not travelled on the very date of his reserved tickets.  Since, the arrival time of the Train No. 16343, Amritha Express at Kottayam is at 1.22 hrs, the complainants reservation ticket was valid for travelling in the train which was started from Trivandrum Central on 02.10.2016 at 22.30 hrs. and arriving Kottayam at 01.22 hrs on 03.10.2016.  Since the complainant had not travelled on the alleged date by that train his berth was marked as not travelled.  The complainant has mistakenly understood the ticket as enabling him to travel on 03.10.2016.  The opposite party alleges that the chart maintained by the railways for the train starting from Trivandrum on 01.10.2016 and reaching Kottayam on 02.10.2016 at 1.22 hrs will show that the berth No.44 was provided to the complainant in coach S5 and was kept vacant since the passenger did not travelled.  It was really a mistake committed by the complainant. Complainant himself had stated in his complaint as well as affidavit that, he undertakes regular journeys by rail travelling the lengths and breadths of the Indian Railways.  Moreover, he is a practicing advocate at the Palakkad bar since 10 years.  Such an educated person who used to travel very often, is supposed to book tickets by applying his mind promptly. He had also called for explanation under RTI provisions from the opposite parties office for which a detailed reply was also issued by the opposite party as per Ext.A4.   He had booked ticket of his own and no one else can be blamed for his own mistake.  In such circumstances, we cannot attribute any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Moreover, the TTE had provided the complainant an alternate accommodation after explaining him the mistake committed by him.  Even after convincing him about his mistakes, he should not have produced with such a complaint before the Forum.  Hence, it is viewed that. the complainant had proceeded with such a false and frivolous complaint before this Forum.  Hence the complaint is dismissed with an order under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act that the complainant shall pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as cost to the opposite party for filing such a false and frivolous complaint before this Forum. 

          The aforesaid amount shall be pay to the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which the opposite party is entitled to execute the order with 6% interest from the date of order till realization. 

          Complaint is dismissed accordingly. 

          Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of May 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          -  Booked Ticket History issued by IRCTC obtained from website

Ext.A2          -  Excess fare ticket issued by the TTE of S-7 Sleeper Coach of Train

              No.16343 (Original)

Ext.A3          -  Copy of RTI Application filed by the complainant with Railway

             dated.07.10.2016

Ext.A4          -  RTI reply sent by the Railways to the complainant (Original)

Ext.A5          -  Reply from the AA & ADRS, RIC (C), Palakkad to 1^st appeal filed by

              the complainant on 22.10.2016 with the 1^st Appellate Authority

Ext.A6          -  Electronic Reservation Slip (Personal User) issued by IRCT’s E-ticketing

              service for journey by Train No.16343

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Ext.B1 -  Copy of the chart of the Train No.16343 dated.02.10.2016

Ext.B2 -  Copy of the chart of the Train No.16343 dated.03.10.2016

Ext.B3 -  Copy of the chart of the Train No.16343 dated.04.10.2016

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1   -  V.C.Janardhanan

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1   -  Rajesh

Cost

          Rs.2,000/-