Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/01/2016

Mr.S.Venugopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager,Southern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Persion

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  27.11.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  10.02.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 10^th   DAY OF FEBRURY 2017

 

C.C.NO.01/2016

 

 

Mr.S.Venugopal,

S/o Late Sankaran,

Plot No: 2, Shri Balaji Flats,

5^th Street, V.V.Nagar, Kolathur,

Chennai - 600 099.

Mobile: 9445325244.

                                                                                 ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. The General Manager,

Southern Railway, Park Town,

Head Quarters, Chennai – 600 003.

 

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Chennai Division, Southern Railway,

Near Head Quarters, Park Town,

Chennai – 600 003.

 

3. The Joint Director (PG),

Public Grievance Cell,

General Manager’s Office,

Head Quarters,

Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 04.01.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in person

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                    : Mr.K.Muthamil Raja

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant for refund of excess amount collected from him towards the I-class fare and also for compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant states that he has been availing the suburban train services from the Southern Railway of the Opposite Parties from the month of April 2014 to February 2015 regularly in the I-class compartment from Villivakkam to Chennai Beach. The Complainant submits that, the area and number of seats allotted for I-class of the EMU car in the western side (Arakkonam-Central Beach route) EMU services, is comparatively less than that of the Southern side of EMU services (Tambaram-Beach Route). In the western side, all EMU services are with 9 car units, in that type I-class car (180 sq.ft areas with 24 seats) is allotted in the 2^nd and 8^th car of the unit. But in the southern side all EMU services are with 12 car units, in that type III, I-class car (303 sq.ft areas with 36 sears) is allotted in the 2^nd, 5^th and 11^th car of the unit. This amply and abundantly shows the Southern Railway authorities extend step motherly treatment in their services to Western side EMU services compared with Southern side EMU services. By paying fare equal to 4 times fare that of the second class, every day he is unable to board and travel comfortably because of sandwiching of passengers causing mad rush. It is great unfortunate incident that when the commuters shell out money for the purpose of comfortable travel,  but it is great irony that the later ought  to have encounter trial and tribulations for commuting the distance struggling and squeezing themselves for the short distance. The Complainant sent a Complaint letter dated 01.4.2014 individually to the Joint Director (PG), Public Grievances cell, Southern Railway, GM Office, Chennai-3 by elucidating in detail about the slew of grievances of the general public and his cause.  The Complainant also registered another Complaint on 09.05.2014 at Villivakkam railway station in the Complaint book in (Complaint No.323450). Further he made a joint representation on 13.06.2014 to Joint Director (PG), public representation,   public grievances cell, Southern Railway, D.G office, Chennai-3) to burgeon the number of seats with more spaces for first class in Western side EMU services. On the bitter experience of the Complainant, he was forced to travel in his two wheeler vehicle though he was stead fastly using the public transportation that is by train owing to the nightmarish experience he has had in the local train.   In view of ever increasing first class pass holders of Railway employees coupled with the fact of the mushrooming of Information Technology sector employees are eventually creating space crunch in the first class compartment. The fact is the I-class compartment in suburban services is jam packed and sandwiched; the commuters invariably cannot expect safe journey in the EMU suburban train. The fare being collected for the express train’s falls under different categories viz 2^nd sleeper, 3^rd A/C, 2^nd, A/C, 1^st A/C, based on which the train fare is charged and comfort for the passengers provided accordingly. Where as in EMU suburban trains there are two slots of categories i.e 2^nd class and 1st class and the charges being collected for the 1^st class is 10 times of 2^nd class fare for daily ticket and 4 times of 2^nd class fare for 1^st class season ticket in EMU suburban train. The Complainant  had received 4 reply letters from the railway authorities for his letters, stating that by indemnifying regular checking machinery and special  squad to curb the unauthorized traveller and also to increase from 24 seats to 36 seats in the first class  and even after 6 months of such reply and also legal notice issued to them, the Opposite Parties have not resolved the grievances of the Complainant and other passengers and therefore the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint   to refund the excess fare collected towards the 1^st class and also claiming compensation for mental agony with costs of the Complaint.       

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st Opposite Party is the principal head of the Southern Railway Administration and the general superintendence and control of the zonal Railway is vested with the first respondent. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the administrative head of the Chennai Railway Division and the 3^rd Opposite Party is not functioning at present and the work of dealing with complaints lodged with the Public Grievances cell in the Southern Railway General Manager’s office in Chennai is now done by the Deputy Director (PG). The Complainant has alleged that he gave representations to Railway authorities for increasing the number of seats and also to make the I-class coaches in the western side EMU services spacious and although reply had been issued by Railways, no concrete action had been taken for readdressing his grievances. He has alleged that Railways have committed deficiency in service and has filed the present consumer Complaint before this Hon’ble Forum praying for directions to Railways to refund the fare paid by the Complainant from April 2014 to February 2015 along with interest in terms of the service. The Electrical Multiple Units have uniform standard specifications with regard to the length and width of the compartments. The first class compartment in EMU’s is a composite of I-class and 2^nd class and therefore depending upon the demand for particular class and passenger traffic in the section, the coach is partitioned to distribute the total number of seats into general first class and the rest for ladies 2^nd class. In the Chennai Central – Chennai Beach-Arakkonam section, Railways are altogether operating 38 rakes of 9 car EMU’s and 11 rakes of 8 car Mainline EMU’s and about 48 first class compartments having 36 seats for general Iclass and the remaining for ladies second class are attached in the above said rakes. In fact, the first class compartments having 36 seats capacity have already been introduced in the section form September 2005 itself. The number of first class cars having 24 seats for first class and the remaining for ladies second class is 33. Also, since the length of the platforms in the stations located in the said section are not sufficient for receiving 12 car EMU’s, only 9 car EMU’s and 8 car EMU’s are operated. Standing capacity is calculated at the rate of 16 passengers per sq.mtr of free space and free space includes doorway area and aisle but does not include the knee space of sitting passengers, Apart from this, the weight of the power equipments such as traction equipment, roof equipment,  battery with battery box, cables, compressor (major and air dryer), three phase electrics etc which itself comes to about 20 tonnes, safety consideration to provide the convertor, transformer etc in the non passenger area and calculation of overall centre of gravity for weight balancing  are some of the factors affecting payload. Thus, assuming the average weight of one passenger to be 65 kgs, an average nine-car train would have a seating capacity of 900 and 1800 standees. Since there is no reservation for the seats in the general first class or the second class in suburban EMU’s the seating/ standing capacity is not indicated. The instrumentation in the cabin checks the drag if any, due to excess load on the axle. The Opposite Parties state that the fares for first class are higher than second class because the first class compartments have better seats and PU cushion and the compartment is also less crowded during non rush hours. The first class compartment is distinguished by red and yellow slant stripes and the letters “FIRST CLASS’ are conspicuously painted near the doors of the compartment and inside also. At times, during rush hours, the first class compartment is also crowded with bonafide passengers, and passenger holding second class tickets also entrain the compartments due to lack of awareness or knowledge. First class travel is a primary concern in ticket checking and regular and continuous checks by Ticket Examiners and Squads have ensured that only bonafide passengers travel in the first class portion of the compartments. It is also stated that overcrowding  in suburban trains is generally during peak hours only and such overcrowding is due to population factor and increase in suburban traffic. Further, there is more number of train commuters in suburban services when compared with any other means of public transportation. For the purpose of commuting the passengers quickly, Railways have already optimized the frequency of the suburban train services in the section to the maximum possible extent and any further increase in frequency would affect the maintenance of the track and coaches and other train services. With regard to the comparative sale of tickets for first class between the Chennai Central(MAS)/Chennai Beach (MSB) – Arakkonam (AJJ) section and Chennai Beach (MSB)- Tindivanam (TMV) section during the period from January 2015 to December 2015, it is stated that 5252 first class tickets and 33,234 first class season tickets were issued in MAS/MSB-AJJ Section during this period as against 47,798 first class tickets and 1,68,180 first class season tickets issued in MSB-TMV section for the same period. Therefore no discrimination between any of the suburban services in terms of fixing the number of first class seats in the first class compartments. In consideration of the letter dated 04.04.2014 and 09.05.2014 submitted by the Complainant, the Railway Administration had given correct reply vide letters dated 12.05.2014 and 16.06.2014. The Railway Administration had explained that ticket checking will be intensified in the section to prevent irregular travel in first class compartments and the modification of the first class compartments for increasing the number of first class seats will also be done in a phased manner during periodic overhauling.  The Complainant’s claim for refund of fare and payment of compensation and costs is without any basis, not tenable and liable to be rejected. Hence the Opposite Parties prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

4. POINT NO :1 

          According to the Complainant is a regular traveller from Villivakkam to Chennai Beach in the I -class car  EMU Suburban Train and the said train playing  from Arokonnam to Chennai Beach on the western side 9 car units and in which the 2^nd & 8^th car of the units allotted I-class car with 24 seats and   whereas on the southern side  the EMU services played between Chennai Beach to Tambaram have 12 car units and in that train  2^nd , 5^th and 11^th car of the units with 36 seats allotted to the I-class car and due to less number of seats and over crowd and unauthorized persons travelled in the said coach, the Complainant did not get seat for sitting and also even to travel by standing also find very difficult and therefore he wrote several letters to the Opposite Party officials and though they replied that they will intensify checking and increase the seats in a phased manner, the grievances was not rectified and therefore the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service.

          5. The Complainant filed Ex.A2, several I –class tickets to show that he had travelled from Villivakkam to Chennai Beach in the said class. The Complainant wrote Ex.A3 Complaint to the public grievance cell of the Opposite Parties, Ex.A5 Complaint at Villivakkam Station Complaint book, Ex.A8 is the joint representation of the  I-class passengers and Ex.A10 notice issued to various authorities to redress the above said grievances. The Opposite Parties also replied in Ex.A6 letter  that regular checking machinery and special squads are adviced to intensify the checking in the I – class. Ex.A9 reply also sent to the Complainant that the seats from 24 to 36 seats will be carried out in a phased manner.  Further, the Opposite Party pleaded in the written version that the length of the platforms located in the said stations are not sufficient to receive 12 cars EMU’s and that is why only 8 & 9  car EMU’s  are operated. This fact clearly establishes that in the western side EMU route platforms cannot be accommodated.  Therefore in view of the above fact the western side route 12 cars EMU’s is not operated, is not deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.

          6. Even to operate 12 cars on the western side, the platforms have to be extended first and thereafter only they can operate the 12 cars. In Ex.A9 reply it has been stated that in a phased manner modification of coaches will be done.  The modification of coach, extension of platforms and operation of 12 cars on the western side EMU route, it involves financial and policy of the Government. Therefore, unless the Government takes steps to do the same, the railways alone could not do the above needs of the Complainant and other passengers.

          7. The next grievance of the Complainant is that unauthorized passengers are entered in the I-class and thereby caused inconvenience for him and other passengers to travel. The Opposite Parties have already intensified regular checking machinery and special squads to curb the unauthorized passengers travel. Since the above step already intimated under Ex.A6 letter to the Complainant, that grievance also solved.  Even then the unauthorized passengers are entering in the I-class is the grievance of the Complainant. For this, the passengers only have to be sensitized by not entering and travelling through the I-class. This sensitization Opposite Parties alone could not do that. The people who had purchased the ticket has to realize & reform themselves and travel in their respective class for which class to travel they have purchased the tickets.  Therefore, as discussed above we find that there is no deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Parties and accordingly this point is answered. 

08. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 10^th day of February 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL		Voter ID (For Proof of Residence)
Ex.A2 dated NIL		Monthly 1st class season ticket, from the month of May 2014 to month of February 2015
Ex.A3 dated 01.04.2014		Complaint letter sent by the Complainant to the Joint Director (PG), Public Grievance Cell, Southern Railway Chennai – 600 003
Ex.A4 dated 04.04.2014		Reply letter for the Complaint letter dated 01.04.2014 from the Joint Director (PG), public Grievance Cell, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 003.
Ex.A5 dated 09.05.2014		Complaint letter by the Complainant in the Complaint book maintained at Villivakkm Railway Station(Complaint No.323450)
Ex.A6 dated 12.05.2014		Reply letter to the Complainant for his Complaint letter dated 01.04.2014 from the Executive Assistant to the Divisional Railway Manager, Chennai Division
Ex.A7 dated 26.05.2014		Reply letter by the Complainant for the letter dated 12.05.2014 by Executive Assistant to the Divisional Railway Manager, Chennai Division
Ex.A8 dated 13.06.2014		Joint Representation by the Complainant to the Joint Director (PG),  Public Grievance cell, Southern Railway, G.M. Office, Chennai – 600 003.
Ex.A9 dated 16.06.2014		Reply letter by the Executive Assistant to Divisional Railway Manager, Chennai Division for the Complainant, Complaint made in Villivakkam Railway Station Complaint book dated 09.05.2014
Ex.A10  dated 30.12.2014		Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to all Opposite Parties (1st, 2nd and 3rd ) and Acknowledgement cards
Ex.A11 dated 08.01.2015		Reply letter from the 3rd Opposite Party for the legal notice issued by the Complainant dated 30.12.2014
Ex.A12 dated NIL		Citizen Charter Downloaded from Indian Railways Portal through their website
Ex.A13 dated NIL		Colour Drawing for the three different types of 1st class car in the Suburban train service
Ex.A14 dated NIL		Colour photos for three different types of 1st class car in the Suburban Train Services.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

 

                                                ……NIL ……

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT