BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 106/10.
THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Prakash K.M. Shankarappa.M. Age: 27 years,
Occ: Self Profession, R/o. H.No. 10-2-56, Kumbar Oni, Makthalpet, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Station Master, Raichur Railway Station,
South Central Railway, Raichur.
2. The Station Master, Railway Station, South Western Railway, Bangalore.
3. The Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal (AP).
4. The Additional Divisional Manager, South Western Railway, Divisional Office, General Branch, Public Grievances Cell, Bangalore-560023.
5. The General Manager, Indian Railway, Catering and Tourism Corporation, Bangalore.
CLAIM : For to direct the opposites to pay sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- towards mental agony, loosing a job and damages caused to the complainant and full ticket amount along with cost and interest.
Date of institution :- 02-12-10.
Notice served :- 30-12-10.
Date of disposal :- 30-05-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. Y. Srikanth, Advocate.
Opposites represented by Sri. D. Suresh, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Gururaj, Member:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant by name Prakash.K.M. against the opposite Nos. 1 to 5 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to pay sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony, loosing a job and damages caused to the complainant and full ticket amount along with cost and interest.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, in order to attain the important training session arranged by his employer company which was going to be held at Ernakulam of Kerala State, he booked a Railway ticket vide PNR No. 8135885197 on 09-10-09 schedule for Ernakulam on 25-10-09. But on 24-10-09 he was heard that, due to an accident taken place in Mumbai trains were not running properly between Ernakulam-Mumbai side, so immediately he has contacted a Railway Enquiry through Enquiry No. 139 several times on the same day, in order to make sure, whether the train is running on the same day which was supposed to reach Raichur at 5:00 am on 25-10-09. The executive of Railway Enquiry 139 had confirmed that, the Ernakulam Train had been cancelled for the day. After the confirmation made by the Railway Authorities, the complainant shifted his journey from Train to Bus and reached the Bangalore. After reaching the Bangalore, he went to the reservation counter at Banashankari Railway Station, at Bangalore to cancel his ticket, and then he came to know that, the Railway Authorities have no information regarding cancellation of train to Ernakulam. Further, they have refused to refund cancellation amount for the ticket pertaining to his Ernakulam journey. Further, it is the case of the complainant that, the Railway Authorities at Raichur have given wrong information and service and for that reason, he came to Bangalore by Bus and got waste of huge money and time for more than 36 hours. Because of this he reached the Ernakulam by getting another train and attended the training session just about to completion. Due to this reason he has lost his job at Ernakulam.
Further, it is the case of the complainant that, after all these troubles he has filed an application before the Railway Authorities on 16-09-09 for to make investigation regarding deficiency of service, for which the Additional Divisional Manager, i.e, Opposite No-4 deeply regretted inconvenience caused to him. It is also the case of the complainant that, the inconvenience is caused by the opposite Railway due to their negligence and deficiency in service, as such, he has lost a huge money and time, also suffered a more than 36 hours by traveling in Bus & Train and lost his job. Hence he has sought for compensation as prayed in the complaint.
3. Opposite Nos. 1 to 5 appeared in this case through their Advocate, the Opposite Nos. 2 & 4 filed their written version separately by contending that, the Union of India is a necessary party in this complaint, but it has not been included as party to the proceedings, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. The education qualification and purpose of obtaining ticket, telephonically enquiry on 24-10-09 about the running status of Train No. 6381 and the conversation held between the complainant and the 139 executives, about his travel to Bangalore from Raichur by Bus and by traveling in another train from Bangalore to Ernakulam are all not of their knowledge. Further, it is contended that, the even if the complainant had reached by Bus to Bangalore, he could have approached the reservation supervisor of the Bangalore City Reservation Office, after getting down at Bangalore City (Majestic) which is hardly 500 meter from Majestic Bus Stand, but he has not done so, he has traveled all the way from Bangalore City to Banashankari which is around 12 KM from Bangalore City to obtain refund. The complaint made by the complainant regarding his inconvenience due to wrong information given by authorities of enquiry system 139 is not pertaining to Bangalore Division, even then, a reply was sent to complainant by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, i.e, opposite No-4 on 14-12-09. The staff’s working for the enquiry systems 139 were not under the Administrative Control of Bangalore Division, however a copy of the complaint was forwarded to GM/IRCTC for necessary action. No enquiries were made by this Division, since neither the staff working for the enquiry system nor did the train such any of the stations within the jurisdiction of this division, but the matter was regretted as an act of courteousness. Hence no deficiency has been caused by the present opposites, sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The opposite No. 5 filed his written version. The opposite Nos. 1 & 3 have adopted the same. The contentions of these opposites are that, the education qualification and about the employer’s company, training sessions of the complainant are all not of their knowledge. The Railway Enquiry through 139 is maintained by IRCTC which only communicates the Data (fed in the) from National Train Enquiry System which is maintained and updated by the concerned Railway/Division. The Train No. 6381 originating from Mumbai CST on 23-10-09 and terminating at Kanyakumari on 25-10-09 passing via Raichur on 24-10-09 was cancelled as per the press release by Southern Railway No. 163/2009-2010 dt. 23-10-09. The conversation between the 139 executives and the complainant is not known, it cannot be established whether it was a mis-understanding by the complainant or wrong information by the 139 services. The act of the complainant regarding cancellation of the ticket at Bangalore instead of at Raichur and his approach to Banashaknkari Reservation Counter instead of Bangalore City Railway Station is not known. The traveling time to Ernakulam from Bangalore is only 10 hours either by Bus or by Train there are frequent buses plying to Ernakulam, on the particular day there were three trains towards Ernakulam i.e, 6315, 2257 and 6526 which means he can reach Ernakulam at least by 10:00 am. There was no proof to show that, by which train he has traveled and at what time he has reached.
Further it is contended that, 139 Railway Enquiry System maintained by IRCTC most of the calls are handled through Integrated Voice Response System (IVRS). This system will response after feeding all information like language, option, train number, date of journey, STD Code and other information and no provision to approach call center agent directly unless any mistake or wrong information fed by the customer. In this case, customer might have pressed wrong button in IVRS that might have led to agent for enquiry. There is no such officer known as General Manager, Indian Catering Railway Tourism Corporation Ltd., Bangalore hence the complaint is fit to be dismissed for non joinder IRCTC. It is also contended that, the Railway do not guarantee reserved accommodation by any other particular train and will not admit any claim for compensation for inconveniences, loses are extra expenses due to such accommodation not been provided. Due to last minute changes and any other reasons beyond the control of Railway Administration, the Railway Authority is not responsible. Hence sought for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposites, as alleged?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.?
3. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the negative.
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 was filed, through one D.Raghavendrarao, Station Manager of Raichur Railway Station, SCR, Raichur. In this affidavit, he is also deposed on behalf of opposite No-3. He has noted as RW-1. Similarly the affidavit-evidence of Opposite No-5 through B. Ramesh, Manager at IRCTC, Bangalore and he is also deposed on behalf of opposite No-2 & 4. He has been noted as RW-2. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 are marked.
8. In view of the pleadings of the parties, their respective evidences and documents. The following fact is undisputed fact in between the parties :-
It is undisputed fact that, the complainant has booked a Railway Ticket on 09-10-09 schedule for Ernakulam on 25-10-09 bearing Railway Ticket PNR No. 8135885197.
9. The complainant has produced following documents namely (1) copy of passing certificate in MBA which is marked at Ex.P-1, (2) copy of transcript marked at Ex.P-2 (3) copy of grade sheets in four numbers which are marked at Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-6, (4) copy of the mobile phone accounts summary is marked at Ex.P-7, (5) copy of mobile phones in detail marked at Ex.P-8, (6) copy of itemized statement marked at Ex.P-9, (7) copy of journey cum reservation ticket marked at Ex.P-10, (8) copy of letter dt. 25-10-09 marked at Ex.P-11, (9) copy of letter dt. 16-09-10 marked at Ex.P-12, (10) copy of letter dt. 14-12-09 marked at Ex.P-13, (11) Postal acknowledgement card copy marked at Ex.P-14 (12) copy of travel bill marked at Ex.P-15. Similarly, the opposites have filed three documents (1) Photo copy of time table train at glance marked at ExR-1, (2) photo copy of southern zone time table marked at Ex.R-2, (3) photo copy of paper cutting in respect of judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Bangalore marked at Ex.R-3.
10. After carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and their documents the main case of the complainant is that, on 24-10-09 he has made Railway Enquiry with the 139 executives about the status of the train through which he has to travel from Raichur to Ernakulam on 25-10-09 at 5:00 AM but he has received wrong and false information as the said train cancelled from the said executives and for which he has late to the training session and lost his job. In order to prove his case, he has mainly depending upon the Ex.P-7 to Ex.P-10. No doubt, the complainant has booked his ticket vide PNR No. 8135885197 through Journey cum Reservation Ticket dt. 09-10-09, this is marked at Ex.P-10. It is the case of the complainant that, he has made enquiry with the 139 executives of Railway and they have given false and wrong information as the said train cancelled. In this regard he has produced the Airtel mobile account summary under Ex.P-7 and charge in detail under Ex.P-8 and itemized system under Ex.P-9. But, on careful perusal of the said Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 it appears that, the said documents are pertaining to the mobile number 9845587430 which is belongs to one Mr. Basavaraju.L. the resident of Srinivas Nagar, Bangalore and not from the mobile phone of complainant. In the said Exhibits, we do not find the name of the complainant’s name at any pages, as he is owner or possessor of the mobile No. 9845587430. The Ex.P-9 itemized statement clearly goes to show that, ‘out going calls’ made by the said Basavaraju.L.
On perusal of Ex.P-11 & Ex.P-12 the letters dt. 25-10-09 and 16-09-10 respectively are showing the mobile number of complainant as 9972435833 whereas the statements and other documents produced by the complainant under Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 are not belongs to the number pertaining to the complainant i.e, 9972435833. The complainant in his complaint, he has not made any averments as he has contacted the Railway Authorities through the mobile of said Basavaraju.L. and there was also no evidence to show that, he has contacted the Railway Authorities on behalf of the complainant. Under such circumstances, the contention of the complainant regarding his enquiry and his allegation about false information given by the Railway Executives cannot be believed. From this, further it also appears that, the alleged enquiry made to the enquiry executives on 24-10-09 is not by the complainant and it is by the one Basavaraju.L.
11. Further, on perusal of Ex.P-9 under the Sl.No. 18 & 25, it is very clear that, the said Basavaraju.L. has made two calls to the phone of complainant it means, it is very clear that, the calls to number 139 which are shown under the Ex.P-9 are from the mobile of one Mr. Basavaraju.L. and not by the complainant. This fact is also clearly speaks from the document submitted by the complainant himself, under such circumstances allegations made by the complainant against the opposite Railway regarding his call to the Railway Enquiry about the status of the train on 24-10-09 is false and baseless.
12. When the very first instance his allegations regarding making of calls about the train itself, not proved then, the other allegations/facts raised by the complainant cannot be accepted as they were borne out of the first allegation about the phone call.
13. The Ex.R-3 produced by the opposite i.e, paper cuttings regarding the judgment passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in Gadiyappa gouda Masari V/s. Life Insurance Corporation Gadag, wherein, in the said paper it appears that, the Hon’ble State Commission has stated mere submission of appeal will not be evidenced without documents. The gist of the said findings of the Hon’ble State Commission is aptly applicable to the present case. Because, in order to prove the case of the complainant that, neither the complainant has produced any documents to show that, he has made calls to the 139 executives, and he has not produced any documents to show that, he has contacted to the 139 executives through the mobile of Basavaraju.L. Further, there are also no pleadings in this regard. Under such circumstances, in absence of the evidence and pleadings on the particular points the claim of the complainant cannot be believed or accepted, hence we are of the opinion that, the allegations made against the opposites regarding deficiency in its service is not proved. Therefore we answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
14. In view of the finding on Point No. 1, the complainant is not entitled for any of the relief’s as prayed in his complaint, accordingly we answered Point No- 1 & 2.
POINT NO.3:-
15. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to cost.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-05-11)
Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur.
