D.o.F:3/12/2010
D.o.O:15/7/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO. 260/10
Dated this, the 15th day of July 2011
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Abdul Rahiman,S/o Mohammed,
R/at Haddad residence, :Complainant
Haddad Nagar,Pallikkara PO,Kasaragod
(Adv.George John Plamoottil,Hosdurg)
1.Station Master, Railway Station,
Kasaragod.
2.The Manager, Divisional Operations, : Opposite parties
Southern Railway,Palakkad.
( in person)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
Tersely stated the case of the complainant is as follows:
On 30/3/10 at 3.46 P.M he booked a ticket through Akshaya Centre Adkathbail to travel from Kasaragod to Panvel on 31/3/2010 in Hapa Express. As per the ticket issued,scheduled departure time was 4.45 hrs from Kasaragod. The complainant is residing 20 KM away from railway station. Hence he arranged a taxi to reach in the railway station on time. He reached railway station by 4.30.A.M and waited till 5.30 hrs. After 5.30 hrs he approached the Ist OP and enquired about the train. Then the station master informed the complainant that the proposed train reached station by 4.10 hrs and left the station by 4.12 hrs. As a result complainant could not travel in that train and attend the meeting held on 1/4/10 in Mumbai there by he sustained huge monetary loss. Therefore the complaint claiming compensation.
2. According to opposite parties the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties. According to them the Regional Manager, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Co-operation Ernakulam and Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Palakkad Division,Palakkad are necessary parties.
On merits it is the case of opposite parties that one Abdul Rahiman had booked one adult sleeper ticket in Train No.2997 Hapa Express from Kasaragod to Panvel on 31/3/10. The train Tirunelveli –Hapa- Tirunelveli Bi-weekly express via Alapuzha was a newly introduced train. It is inaugural run was on 30/3/2010 and scheduled to leave Tirunelveli at 13.30 hrs on 30/3/2010 with timing at Kasaragod on 4.43/04.45 hrs on 31/3/2010. The timings of regular service from Tirunelveli departure was 5.45 hrs and scheduled arrival time at Kasaragod is 19.38/19.40 hrs. The regular timings of the train was published in South zone Railway time table w.e.f Nov.2009. In the ticket the tentative scheduled departure of the said train was furnished on 4.45(with star mark). The star mark was explained in bold letters just below as ‘Departure time printed in ERS is liable to change. New Time Table will be effected from 1/11/2009. Hence the statement of the complainant that he telephoned to Ist opposite party and confirmed the arrival/departure of the said train is not correct. Had the complainant contacted the Ist opposite arty, the correct timings should have been told him and the complainant would have got the train by arriving in time to the station. The complainant is aged 42 years but the person who purchased e-ticket was one Abdul Rahiman aged 47 years. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The customer has not enquired the railway station enquiry before reaching railway station at 4.30 hrs on 31/3/2010. The complainant has enquired the station master after 5.30 hrs long after departure of the said train. It is the duty of the customer to enquire and confirm the correct arrival and departure of the train for which he has reserved accommodation well in advance. The complainant should have contacted the agent through whom he has purchased the e-ticket fare on 31/3/2010 and the complainant has not sought for any refund as per rules. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his claim. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on his side. For opposite parties Sri. K.P.Damodaran Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Palakkad Division Palakkad has filed affidavit as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 marked. Both sides heard and documents perused.
4. Ext.A1 is the copy of the e-ticket obtained by the complainant through Akshaya Kendram Adkathbail. Ext.A2 is the copy of application dtd.12/4/10 addressed to Station Master Kasaragod claiming a compensation of ` 25,000/-. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt. Ext.B1 is the copy of the train signal Register relating to the running of trains on 31/3/2010 kept by Ist opposite party. As per Ext.B1 it is seen that the train No.2997 has left the Kasaragod station by 4.12 hrs. Ext.B2 is the south Zone railway time table from November 2009 . Ext.B3 is the booking details of e-ticket of the complainant with the reservation chart of 2997 -Hapa Express pertaining to its inaugural journey on 30/3/2010. As per the reservation chart it is seen that there was only one passenger reserved a ticket from Kasaragod on that inaugural run of Tirunelveli Hapa Express(Train No.2997) on 30/3/2010 that reached Kasaragod at 04.10 hrs on 31/3/2010 and left at 4.12 hrs.
5. Now the points to be considered in this complaint are:
1.Whether the complaint is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties and non joinder of parties?
2.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties
3.Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as claimed?
4.What order as to compensation and costs?
6. Point No.1: Non joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties
In the affidavit DW1 has stated that the Regional Manager Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Co-operation Ernakulam and Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Palakkad Division Palakkad are necessary parties to the complaint and General Manager ,Southern Railway Chennai is an unnecessary party to the proceedings. But it is seen that complaint is instituted against the Station Master railway station ,Kasaragod and the Manager Divisional Operation Southern Railway Palakkad and General Manager Southern Railway Chennai is not a party at all. Hence this statement has no relevant. Further the case of the complainant is that the train is left the station much earlier than the scheduled time and as a consequence he suffered loss. So the dispute emerges from the time schedule of the train which is operated and controlled by opposite parties 1&2. So they are the necessary parties to the complaint. Apart from that opposite parties have not produced any authority to show that the complainant claiming compensation before the Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act shall be filed against the authorities aforementioned. Hence we decline to accept the aforesaid contention and hold that the complaint is neither bad for non joinder of necessary parties nor mis-joinder of parties. Further it is well settled that no complaint can be dismissed merely for the technical reasons like non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. Hence the ruling reported in IV (2005)CPJ 240 Deputy Registrarof (colleges) & Anr. Vs. Ruchika Jain produced by the opposite party is not applicable to the instant case. Further the FORA constituted under the Consumer Protection Act is not bound by hairsplitting technicalities since FORUM is intended for the consumers who have no legal know how to substantiate their grievances. The Forums need to follow only the principles of natural justice.
7. Issue No.2 Deficiency in service:
It is the case of opposite parties that in the e- ticket issued to the complainant itself it is printed that the departure time printed in ERS is liable to change and a new time table will be effected from 1/11/2009 . In Ext.A1 ticket the time is mentioned as 4.45 hrs. But to the specific enquiry about the time scheduled for the journey on 31/3/2010 the answer of opposite parties is that it is 4.45 hrs at Kasaragod. The opposite parties have no case that 4.45 hrs mentioned in the ticket has been substituted with any re-scheduled time table.
On further enquiry we came to realize that even the Ist opposite party has no information about the exact time schedule for the arrival /departure of the inaugural run of 2997 Tirunelveli – Hapa Express and that caused the early passing of train before its scheduled time mentioned in the e-ticket. Therefore it is no doubt that the early running of train than the time scheduled amounts to deficiency in service as it causes much difficulties to the passengers having reserved tickets.
8. Issue No.3&4 Relief &Costs:
It is the case of the complainant that he is residing 20 km away from Kasaragod station and therefore in order to reach the station on the odd hours of 31/3/2010 he arranged taxi and reached station by 4.30 hrs . It is his further case that since the train is left earlier than the time fixed he could not reach Mumbai in time and thereby sustained loss. But the complainant has not exactly specified how the loss caused and what exactly is the loss caused. Of course he might have suffered mental agony when he came to know that the train is left before time. In the absence of any ample cogent evidence regarding the loss we are of the view that complainant is liable to get compensation only for mental agony.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of `10,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and suffering caused to him together with a cost of ` 2000/- .Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @9% for `10,000/- from today till payment.
Exts:
A1 copy of the e-ticket
A2 copy of application dtd.12/4/10 addressed to Station Master Kasaragod claiming a compensation of 25,000/-.
A3 -postal receipt.
B1- copy of the train signal Register
B2- copy of south Zone railway time table dtd. From November 2009 .
B3- copy of booking details
PW1-Abdul Rahiman- complainant
DW1-K.P.Damodaran Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Palakkad
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva /Forwarded by Order/ /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
