DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
CC.No.135/2009
Swathy.K.Suresh, Represented by next friend, natural guardian, father Suresh.K.S, Karikunnel House, Athani.P.O, Nedumbassery, Ernakulam 683 585. - Complainant (By Adv.Shanly Sebastian.K and Adv.P.K.Dileep)
Vs
1. Union of India, Rep by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 600003 (By T.R.Rajagopalan)
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Palaghat Division, Palaghat 678002. - Opposite parties (By T.R.Rajagopalan) O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
Case of the complainant is as follows: Complainant is a minor represented by her natural guardian father, complainant booked AC 3 tier tickets for the journey of his family from New Delhi to Aluva on 9/10/2008. The tickets were booked from Palakkad Railway Station. Complainant got confirmed tickets in coach No.B2. The complainant herein was
alloted berth No.64 in B2 coach. When the journey started from New Delhi it is understood that there was no seat for Nos.63 and 64 in the B2 coach. Instead of berth the Railway used the same for keeping woolen clothes to be used in the AC compartments. Complainant reported the matter to the TTR. The TTR informed that the coaches are full and requested the complainant to adjust with other passengers. Complainant reported the matter to the Chief Train Ticket Inspector. He forcibly took the ticket from the complainant and alloted berth No.7 in B1 coach. When searched for berth No.7 he found that another passenger was sleeping there. The said passenger told the complainant that the berth belongs to TTR and he has alloted it to him as a substitute of berth No.63 in B2 coach. Complainant has not been alloted any other berth till the end of the journey and also not returned the ticket fare. Complainant caused a lawyer notice dt.9/12/08 to the opposite parties requesting compensation to the mental agony caused to the complainant and his family. The notice sent to the Divisional General Manager, Palakkad returned undelivered on the remark that there was no such designation. Complainant again caused a lawyer notice dt.31/12/08 in the correct designation. Opposite parties received the notice. But has not sent any reply. According to complainant the act of the opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint.
Opposite parties filed version contending the following. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant has reserved ticket from Palakkad Station in 3A(B2) coach and berth No.64 was alloted to them. Opposite parties submitted that on the date of journey it was found that berth No.64 in B2 coach was in damaged condition.
The TTE and the Chief Train Ticket Inspector checked the entire reservation chart for allotment of a berth to the complainant. Since there was no vacant berth, berth No.7 in adjacent coach B1 kept for TTE was alloted to the complainant. The TTE's berth was alloted to the complainant and Railway is not accountable for the non-utilisation of the alloted berth. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
Evidence adduced consists of the affidavits of the respective parties. Exts.A1 to A7 marked on the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence on the part of opposite parties.
Issues for consideration are; Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, what the relief and cost the complainant is entitled to?
Issues 1 & 2: Undisputed facts of the complaint is that the complainant and his family reserved ticket for the journey from New Delhi to Aluva from Palakkad Railway Station and berth No.64 was alloted to the minor child in the B2 coach. It is also admitted by both the parties that instead of confirmed berth No.64, another berth No.7 in adjacent B1 coach was alloted to the minor complainant. It is also not in dispute that TTE's berth has alloted to the minor girl.
The dispute is regarding the reasons for allotment of the said berth. Complainant submitted that the said berth was used by the Railway for keeping woolen clothes for use in the AC compartment. Opposite parties on the other hand contented that alternate arrangement was made since the alloted berth was in a damaged condition. According to opposite parties they are not accountable for the non-utilisation of the alloted berth by the complainant. But the complainant submitted that when he approached berth No.7 in B1 coach it was already been occupied by another person for whom TTE has already alloted the berth.
It is admitted and also evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant was first alloted berth No.64 in B2 coach and later berth No.7 in B1 coach. On going through the evidence on records it can be seen that Railway has not produced any piece of evidence to prove their contention. Contentions of opposite parties that the berth No.64 was in damaged condition and berth No.7 in B1 coach belong to the TTE is not proved by any documentary evidence. Opposite parties has also not produced the copy of the reservation chart to show that the complainant was alloted berth No.7 in B1 coach. Berth No.7 in B1 coach belongs to the TTE is also not proved. The fact that the berth No.64 was in a damaged condition can be very well proved by taking out a commission. That has not been done in this case.
It is understood from the complaint that the husband and wife along with two minor children were traveling from New Delhi to Aluva. Since it is a very long journey and considering the fact that the children are minors, the act of opposite parties certainly would have caused mental agony and sufferings to the complainant's
family. Opposite parties miserably failed to prove their contention. From the available evidence on record we are of the view that complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of May, 2010 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
Appendix Date of filing: 05/10/2009
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties Nil Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Journey cum reservation ticket (Original) Ext.A2 – Copy of lawyer notice dt.9/12/08 sent by complainant to opposite parties
Ext.A3 – Postal receipts Ext.A4 – Acknowledgement card Ext.A5 - Copy of lawyer notice dt.9/12/08 sent by complainant to opposite parties Ext.A6 – Postal receipt Ext.A7 – Acknowledgement card
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost (Allowed)
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost
| | HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member | HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H, PRESIDENT | , | | 
