DATE OF FILING: 19.12.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 08.09.2017
O R D E R
Dr. N. Tuna Sahu, Presiding Member:
The complainants have filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in railway service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of their grievances before this Forum.
2. The brief facts that are relevantly required for disposal of this consumer complaint are that the complainants are the passenger-cum-consumers of the O.Ps. The O.P.No.2 to 4 are service providers and is duty bound to provide comforts to its commuters and to maintain the platform in proper order. The O.P.No.1 is the head of the O.P.No.2 to 4 and sanctioning funds to maintain the platform and to provide other facilities and amenities of the railway platform, foot over bridge, etc. Accordingly, it is the duty of the O.Ps to maintain in good order, platforms, foot paths, over bridges for easy ingress and egress of the passengers and all other passenger facilities and amenities. For this maintenance, passengers-cum-consumers in general are paying fees by way of purchase of journey tickets or platform tickets. The O.Ps failed to provide services i.e. properly roofed platform at Platform No.1, 2 &3 and foot over bridges connected from platform No.1 to 2 at Railway Station, Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam, to the complainant No.1 on 5th December 2013 while complainant No.1 and his family arrived and alighting at Berhampur Railway Station, through the Puri-Ahemdabad express vide PNR No: 6525082004, Train No.12843. As a result, the complainant No.1 and his entire family members faced severe cold in the night and could not able to stay for a while. Like the complainant No.1, the complainant No.2 & 3 also faced same problem while alighting at Berhampur Railway Station. The passengers-cum-consumers belong to the other places of the Ganjam district who also using Railway Platform at Chatrapur, Ganjam etc are also facing same problems like the present complainants. It is also alleged that during this winter, the conditions of the passengers who are waiting hours together for train in the said platforms and using the unroofed foot over bridge are worst. Under these circumstances, the passengers-cum-consumers are feared to have been facing diseases related to itching cold and the patients who are travelling are also facing untoward problems. The asbestos of platform No.1 to 3 and foot over bridge of platform No.1 & 2 have been weathered away since last two months and so far no attempt was made to repair the said roofs which speak volumes against the O.Ps and their unfair trade practice. The local populous already tabled their grievances directly and through different local dailies to the O.Ps but nobody pay any heed to it. As such, the populous on 16.12.2013 made a demonstration in front of the office of O.P.No.4. The local daily newspaper “The Samaj” on 9th & 18th November and on 17th December of 2013 published the photographs and news clips describing conditions of platform and foot over bridge of the railway station of Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam. It is also alleged that O.Ps are collecting huge revenue from this railway station throughout the year but failed to provide appropriate service to the complainants and other passengers-cum-consumers. By this act of O.Ps ingress and egress of passengers are suffering irreparable loss mentally, physically and financially by paying the appropriate fees to the O.Ps. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainants has filed this consumer complaint praying to direct the O.Ps to renovate and replace the roofs of the platform No.1,2 &3 and foot over bridge connected in between platform No.1 & 2 at Railway Station, Berhampur and other stations of the Ganjam district i.e. Chatrapur, Ganjam in a time bound manner and to return the charges paid by the consumers towards traveling fares and platform fees and to pay exemplary compensation to the complainants in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against all the Opposite Parties. The O.P.No.1 neither appeared nor filed any written version to proceed with the case hence he was declared ex-parte on 02/12/2015. The O.P.No.2 & 3 appeared through learned counsel Shri Srinibas Panigrahi on 24.05.2016 by filing Vakalatanama but the same was not accepted by this Forum since the O.P.No.2&3 were set ex-parte on 02/12/2015. Similarly, the O.P.No.4 appeared through learned counsel Shri Srinibas Panigrahi, Advocate, Berhampur and filed his written version on 15/02/2016 and written argument on 16.03.2016. As a result, the present case was proceeded ex-parte against the O.P.No.1 to 3 during the final hearing of the consumer dispute.
4. In the written version/written argument the learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 stated that the allegations and averments made in the petition are all not true; they are false, fabricated and concocted ones. The complainants are put to strict proof of the same. There is no institution called ‘VEDIC’ and also the persons named in the cause title have not filed any document showing the existence of VEDIC and they are representing the said so called organization. Only to have an ostensible gain they have designated an institution in their minds, thought and also designated themselves as the representative of it. The Annexures filed by the complainants do not show that they belong to them. For argument sake if it is taken to be considered that they belong to them, the same Annexures proved that they have availed the service of the O.Ps by way of completion of their journey. During the alleged period of the complaint, there were heavy losses of the O.P. due to ‘cyclonic storm’ known as ‘phailin’. The Annexure filed by the complainant also shows that the Berhampur Railway Station was affected due to Phailin. But at the same time the O.Ps took much care for the comforts of the passengers during that period. The repairing work in the railway station was done on war footing basis and was completed before filing of this case. The alleged sufferings of the sufferance of the complainants are myth and bear no truth. The Annexure which are shown as train ticket does not show that they belong to the complainants, no name of the complainant finds place in them. For the act of ‘God’ and damage due to natural calamity the complainant can’t finger the O.Ps. For that also they are not the consumers and the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable in this case and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. The case is filed beyond the period of limitation. As case bears no merit and filed without any cause of action and whatever things or events occurred was due to ‘Act of God’, the same may be dismissed with cost in the interest of justice.
5. On the date of final hearing we have heard one of the complainants in person as well as the learned counsel for the O.P.No.4 and we have also gone through the complaint and written arguments of both parties. We have also perused the materials placed on the case record and have also considered the submissions made before this Forum by both parties.
6. During the course of hearing of the consumer dispute, as per submissions made by the complainants and on going through the record of the file, we find that in this case the complainants have filed their complaints jointly in this Forum through a Voluntary Consumer Association namely VEDIC with the prior permission of this Forum. The authorized person of VEDIC filed this consumer complaint mentioning problems of the consumers and prayed to direct the O.Ps to take immediate necessary action to renovate and restore the roofs of platform as well as foot over bridge connected from platform No.1 to 2 in the Railway State at Berhampur and to return the travel fares and platform fees and to grant exemplary compensation. On further perusal and as per the complaint and contentions of the complainants, the complainant No.1 and his family when arrived at platform No.2 of Berhampur Railway Station on 05.12.2013 through Puri - Ahemdabad Express he faced severe cold and rain in the night and could not stand in the platform for a while due to non-available of roof shed over the platform No.2 and while crossing from platform No.2 to1 through foot over bridge he also faced the same problem. For this, public complaint was filed along with the present complainants and other organizations before the railway authorities and this facts were also reported in the daily newspaper “The Samaj” on 09.11.2013 and 17.12.2013. The complainant has also contended that he is a consumer in view of the authorities of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Vinaya Vilas Sawant (Smt.) Vs. Union of India decided on 29.11.2007. Being a consumer has availed the service and has sustained injury due to cold after getting down from the train at Berhampur station at around 21hrs at night and due to that the complaint could not attend his professional works. It is also alleged that even after filing of this complaint on 19.12.2013 the O.P.No.4 did not choose to start the work till the public grievance filed online before Railway Board on 01.04.2013 bearing complaint No.MORLY/ E/2014/03056 and has also filed the status report of the aforesaid grievances. He also drew our attention towards a document containing minimum essential amenities passengers’ amenities, stations and yards to be provided mandatorily by the railway authorizes and also claimed compensation in view of Section 128 of Railways Act.
7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.4 in his argument contended that during the alleged period of traveling of the complainant there were heavy losses of the O.P.No.4 due to cyclonic storm known as Phailin and the Annexures filed by the complainant shows that the Berhampur Railway station was affected due to that phailin. During arguments of the case, he has also disputed the tickets of the complainants on the ground that there were no names of the complainants find place in the ticket and stated that it is an act of ‘God’ and the damage was caused due to natural calamity for which the complainant can’t finger to the O.P.No.4. He further contended that the repairing work of Berhampur station was started on 04.04.2014 and completed on 08.12.2014. The work was started after issue of acceptance letter No.D/K/T/Cyclone- phailin/South Section /JPS/307 dated 24.03.2014 for the work of proposed repairs of service building, FOB, PF shelter etc damaged due to cyclone phailin on 12.10.2013 under Sr. DEN (South) of Khurda Road Division. He also contended that the complainants are not consumers and Consumer Protection Act is not application and the petition is filed by the petitioners with oblivious motive against the O.P. which has been filed beyond the period of limitation and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case. Therefore, the learned counsel for the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case with cost in the interest of justice as the case bears no merits.
8. In view of the above rivalry contentions submitted by both parties, the issues that crop up for consideration before this Forum as to whether (a) the present complainants are consumers? Whether the complainants suffered due to negligence of O.Ps especially due to any negligence or deficiency in service on part of O.P.No.4? Whether the complainants are entitled for any compensation from the O.Ps in the fact and circumstances of the present dispute?
9. To adjudicate the above issues in dispute, we would like to state that as far as the first issue is concerned there is no doubt or dispute that the complainant No.1 is a bona fide consumer as is evident from the journey ticket issued by the IRCTC bearing PNR No.6525082004 booked on 18.121.2013 for journey on 05.12.2013 from Puri to Berhampur on payment of Rs.341/- placed as Annexure -1 on the case record. We have also gone through other two tickets issued on 16.12.2013 placed on the case record but we could not find the name of persons who own the tickets. The complainant No.1 has purchased the ticket for his aforesaid journey on payment of required consideration and has availed railway service as per rule which is beyond any doubt or dispute and as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant No.1 is a bona fide consumer under O.Ps and can file a consumer complaint against the railway authorities if feels deficiency in service on part of railway authorities.
10. With regard to the second issue as framed above, we would like to view that the complainant No.1 has contended that he faced severe cold and rain on 05/12/2013 in the night of his arrival at platform No.2 at Berhapur railway station and due to non-availability of roof shed on the said platform and on the foot over bridge from platform No.2 to 1 he and his faced inconvenience while exit from the railway station. He has also alleged that the railway authority is very poor in maintenance of the passenger amenities of said platform and foot over bridge for which his family was suffered from cold and rain due to non-availability of roof over the platform and foot over bridge. As per his contention this is due to the negligence and deficiency in service on part of O.P. No.4 who did not care for the comfortable exit of the complainant No.1 and his family members from the railway station on the night of their arrival at Berhampur. In this context, we would like to view that we are agree with the contentions of learned counsel for the O.P.No.4 that it was caused due to cyclonic storm phailin which ravaged extensive damage in Ganjam District on 12.10.2013. There is no doubt it was due to natural disaster and the O.Ps are responsible to restore the system as per their convenience. As far as the duty and responsibilities of O.P.No.4 is concerned, he is merely an employee of O.P.No.1 posted as Station Manager and his duty is to take care of the station as decided by the railway authorities. It is an admitted fact that everyday a large number of passengers are travelling through Berhampur Railway Station and it is not expected from a Station Manager to extend individual comfortable services or attention to one and all passengers. It is also a fact not in dispute that the O.P.No.4 can’t do anything in case of non-availability of roof on the platform or over the foot over bridge since it is an executive decision of O.P.No.1 and Railway Board and can be ensured through policy decision since it involves financial support of the Government. Hence, it can’t be stated that the complainants suffered due to negligence of O.P.No.4, as the Station Manager is only an employee of O.P.No.1 and his duty is to intimate the officials of concerned division regarding the problem of his station and to seek support of higher authorities to resolve the same. In this case the complainant has not specifically alleged that despite his request the O.P.No.4 did not extend any support service while he and his family were on the railway station of Berhampur at night and therefore the O.P.No.4 can’t be held to have deficient in service. Besides, the complainants have not filed any cogent and convincing documentary evidence that due to cold and rain they have suffered and become ill and for that we are not going to accept the claim of the complainant as because it is without any substantial documentary evidence. It is natural that there will be public agitation and news items to be published on different public interest related issues in news papers and railway services can’t be exempted from this public dissatisfaction but it should be raised in a proper forum to seek intervention of railway authority or Ministry to resolve the issues. Moreover, the complainant No.1 has not proved any of his personal damage so he can’t claim that there was deficiency in service on part of O.Ps due non-available of shed on the platform or roof over the foot over bridge since the phailin was occurred on 12.10.2013 and the complainant No.1 was arrived at the Berhampur railway station on the night of 05.12.2013 since it is not expected to restore the platform with in this small span of time period of around two months as it requires government intervention, help and support. Further, it is also a fact that the O.Ps have already restored fully the normal conditions of the platform and foot over bridge of the said railway station as discussed above, hence at present we don’t feel it necessary to direct the O.Ps to restore the same. In view of above discussion we feel that there was no deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps and the complainants have failed to prove their case.
11. Regarding the third issue as set above as to whether the complainants are entitled for any compensation from the O.Ps, we would like to view that there is no doubt or dispute that the complainants have successfully completed their journey and they were faced no problem and not caused any damage to them either physically or financially except going through the cold raining night. The claim of sick due to cold and rain also not sustainable under law as because the complainants have not filed any established documentary evidence to hold that they were in fact became ill due to that incident. We are, therefore, not inclined to believe the contentions of the complainants that they were become sick due to that and have incurred financial loss for the same. Hence, we are not interested to award any compensation whatsoever in the fact and circumstances of the case since the complainants have failed to prove their case against the O.Ps. Therefore, the citations submitted by the complainants in support of their case do not derive any strength to support their claim as this fact makes different from the authorities cited in the said case hence rejected. In a sequel to the above discussions, deliberations and considering the fact and circumstances of the present case, in our considered view this complaint has got no merit to consider hence dismissed.
12. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed against all O.Ps due to devoid of any merits. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly. We, however, make no order as to costs in the fact and circumstances of the case.
13. The order is pronounced on this 8th day of September 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
