KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 680/12
JUDGMENT DATED:23.01.2013
(Against the order in CC.222/11 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod dtd:29.06.2012)
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
The Divisional Manager,
Southern Railway,
Divisional Railway Manager’s Office, : APPELLANT
Palakkad-678 124.
(By Adv: Sri. S. Renganathan)
Vs.
V.K. Abdulla,
S/0 Imbichi Moideen,
R/at MPP, IV-2,
Hill Block, CPC RI Quarters, : RESPONDENT
Kudla Village, Kudla P.O,
Kasaragod-671 124.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the opposite party ie Southern Railway, represented by its Divisional Manager, Palakkad challenging the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod in CC.222/11 dated, June 29, 2012 awarding a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the alleged deficiency of service on the part of railways.
2. The case of the respondent/complainant as detailed in his complaint before the Forum in brief is this. Complainant with his wife Aishath Suhara boarded A/C-3 coach of Malabar Express on January 27, 2011 from Kottayam to Kasaragod. But the beddings supplied by the railways were infected with bed bugs. Consequently the wife of the complainant suffered serious health problems and were not able to sleep. The complainant was compelled to break their journey at Thalassery and take his wife to a nearby hospital for treatment. He lodged a complaint immediately before the Station Master, Thalassery but no action was taken. Hence the complaint.
3. The Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad in his version contended thus- The complaint is not maintainable as there is Railway Claims Tribunal functioning at Ernakulam. The complainant has to file claim before that Tribunal. The beddings supplies to passengers traveling in A/C coaches were machine washed, dried and iron pressed before supplying to the passengers. Therefore the version of the complainant that it was infected with bed bugs is not true. No complaint was given to the TTE who was in charge of the A/C 3 tier coach. If the complainant had made any complaint, his wife could have been treated in Railway Health Centre. The coach in which the complainant was traveling was inspected by the competent authority and he found no bed bugs either in beddings or in the sleeping berths. That being so the complaint has to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on his side before the Forum. On the side of the opposite party/railways, DW1 to 3 were examined.
5. On an appreciation of the evidence the Forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railways and ordered them to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.3000/-. The opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
6. The counsel for the appellant/railways submitted that the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint, that the version of the complainant that the beddings supplied were infected with bed bugs is not true and that therefore complaint has to be dismissed. The respondent/complainant on the other hand supported the order of the Lower Forum.
7. The following points arise for consideration-
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the railways?
3. Whether the impugned order of the Forum below can be sustained?
8. The counsel for the appellant/opposite party mainly contended that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as the complainant never approached Railway Claims Tribunal at Ernakulam. There is no substance in the above contention. Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act the remedy available under the Act is only an additional remedy. In Union of India and Another Vs. Savithaben Sumanbhai Patel & Ors., RP. No.1725/2009 dt:5.5.2011 the Hon’ble National Commission has held that sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy and that as such Consumer Fora are competent to entertain the claim covered any relevant section of the Railway Act/Railway Claims Tribunal Act. That being so, the Forum is perfectly justified in holding that the complaint is maintainable.
9. The case of the complainant is that while he was travelling in A/C-3 tier coach of Malabar Express on January 27, 2011 due to attack of bed bugs in the beddings supplied by the railway he had to discontinue his journey at Thalassery railways station. The case of the appellant/opposite party is of total denial. The counsel for the appellant would submit that other passengers of the same compartment did not make any complaint in that therefore the case of the complainant cannot be believed.
10. For the following reason we are inclined to believe the case of the complainant on this aspect. He has lodged the complaint within 15 minutes after the train reached at Thalassery station. This complainant cannot be considered as an after thought. Merely because other passengers did not complaint, it does not mean that the case of the 1st respondent/complainant is false. DW1 to 3 were examined on the side of the appellant/opposite party. But their evidence does not in any way help the appellant to prove their case.
11. For all these reasons I am inclined to hold that the Lower Forum is perfectly justified in finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The Forum has also awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- which appears reasonable.
In the result I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.3000/-.
JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT
VL.
