BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.932 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO168 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM –II VISAKHAPATNAM
Between:
- The Divisional Railway Manager
East Coast Railway, DRM Office, Dondaparthy
Visakhapatnam - The General Manager,
East Coast Railway
GM Office, Bhubaneswar,
Orissa State Appellants/opposite parties
A N D
Vanney Venkata Someswara Rao
S/o Chandra Rao, aged about 40 years,
Practicing as an Advocate, District Courts
Visakhapatnam, R/o 7-13-/3/1, Opp. AU Gate
Visakhapatnam
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant M/s R.Dilip Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent Sri V.Raju
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The respondent has filed complaint before the District Forum seeking relief of refund of train fare of `2,962/- and for payment of compensation, a sum of `30,000/-, damages of `30,000/- as well as costs of `5,000/-.
2. The respondent and a team of five members obtained confirmation reservation ticket bearing number 6320638143 for journey from Bhadrak to Ernakulam on 15.12.2008 in Train Number 6324 i.e, Shalimar Express. He paid the fare of `2,962/- to the appellants. He got endorsement on the reservation ticket from the chief reservation supervisor, Vishakapatnam for changing of boarding station from Bhadrak to Vishakhapatnam and on the day of journey, i.e, 15.12.2008 he and his team members found that the berth numbers 50, 54, 56 and 62 reserved for them were occupied by some other passengers and on his enquiry he was informed that the TTE allotted the berths to the passengers by collecting an amount of `2,500/- from them. The TTE provided them berths 41 to 43 in S-6 coach after 5 hours of their boarding the train which caused them physical strain and mental agony.
3. The appellants resisted the claim on the premise that the respondent failed to mention the date on which the change of boarding point was made and that the respondent did not complain the third parties occupying their berths to the TTE in the train or to the Railway Police. In the additional written version, it is contended that as the respondent did not board the train at Bhadrak, the TTE allotted two berths at Kuhrda Railway Station and three berths were allotted at Palasa Railway Station to other passengers. It is contended that the respondent and his team members had not informed about the change of their boarding point from Bhadrak to Vishakapatnam. It is contended that the respondent has no locus standi to file the complaint on behalf of other five members of his party and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The respondent, in support of his claim has filed his affidavit and the documents marked as ExA1 to A5. On behalf of the appellants, ExB1 and B2 had been marked.
5. The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the premise that the staff of the appellants failed to carry out the endorsement on the reservation ticket in the chart prepared for coach 6 and 8 of the Train and consequently, the respondent and his team members suffered inconvenience.
6. The opposite parties have filed the appeal contending that the respondent did not furnish the exact date on which he tendered the application for changing the boarding station and produced the ticket that was not signed as per the extant rules and that the respondent has not followed the procedure laid down by the rules for change of boarding point. The guidelines are incorporated in the Railway Time Table. The respondent is expected to approach the Reservation Office at least 24 hours before the departure of train with a request for change of boarding point and obtain endorsement to the effect on the ticket with seal and signature of the Railway Authorities.
7. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from infirmity of misappreciation of facts or law?
8. It is beyond any dispute that the respondent paid and amount of `2,962/- for reservation of berths in Shalimar Express for their journey from Bhadrak to Ernakulam on 15.12.2008 and confirmation reservation ticket bearing number 6320638143 was issued by the appellants in favour of the respondent and five members of his team. The respondent’s contention is that despite approval of his request for change of boarding point from Bhadrak to Vishakapatnam, he and the members of his team were deprived of the usage of berths for five hours and ultimately they were allotted berths in Coach 8 whereas the contention of the appellants that the respondent had not informed the Reservation Office 24 hours in advance to the journey time about the change of boarding point and he has not followed the procedure prescribed for change of boarding station as also he had not obtained the signature of the clerk concerned authenticating the endorsement for change of boarding station from Bhadrak to Vishakhapatnam as a result of which the berths reserved for the respondent and his team members were allotted to other passengers.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the guide lines in the Time Table and the Rule 637 and 638 of the Commercial Manual. In the Time Table under the title “permission to board at an enroute station” it is stated that;
“a) For computerized reservation ticket:
i) On computerized reservation system, if you have purchased your ticket from a remote location utilizing its quota for journey from that station, Chief Reservation Supervisor can change the boarding point of there is sufficient reason for necessitating such change as per your demand provided the request is made in writing to the station from which the ticket waqs purchased and reservation made at least 24 hours before the scheduled departure of the train from that station. No refund is however, admissible in such cases for the unused portion of the journey. boarding station.
ii) But when a remote location quoa is utilized for purchasing the ticket by other than that station, boarding point should not be changed under any circusmances. For example, if you have purchased your ticket from Rourkela location ex: Tatanagar to Mumbai CST and get confirmed reservation rom Tatanagar quota, boarding point cannot be changed to Rourkela.
iii) When a quota of remote location is full you may purchase your ticket form the train originating station and can board at any intermediate station. Such change will be done by Chief Reservation Supervisor as per extant rule.
iv) When the quotas for Tatanagar is full if you purchase your ticket from Tatanagar for the journey ex: Kharagpur to Mumbai CST and want to board at Tatanagar such change cannot be permitted
(b) For manual reservation ticket:
If you wish to bard the train at enroute station, you must give a written request to the Station Manager of the original boarding station atleast 24 hours before the schedule departure of the train so as to enable him to issue proper instructions to the concerned staff. No refund is admissible for the untraveled portion between the original boarding station and the enroute station.
10. Rule 637 of the Commercial Manual prescribes the procedure for applying for and granting of permission for change of the boarding point from which accommodation is reserved to any other station. It reads as under:
Passengers who have purchased tickets and reserved accommodation thereon from a particular station but desire to entrain and occupy the accommodation from another station en route may be permitted to do so provided ”.
11. The copy of chart placed on record pertaining to Coach S-8 indicates that the accommodation for the respondent and five other members of his team is confirmed and they had been allotted berth numbers 50, 54, 60, 62. Placing reliance on the entries showing the accommodation for the respondent and his team members in the Chart of the coach-S-8, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the respondent has not made any application in writing for change of boarding station from Bhadrak to Vishakapatnam. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel in the teeth of the endorsement made by the Chief Reservation Superintendenat on the ticket . The learned counsel would contend that the respondent has not followed the procedure prescribed for change of boarding point from the station from which accommodation was made.
12. It is true that the respondent has not stated on which date he made an application for change of boarding point. It is also true that endorsement made on the reservation ticket does not bear the signature of the clerk concerned. The procedure prescribed for change of boarding station stipulates that the request should be made 24 hours in advance to the date of journey and it should be submitted where the ticket is purchased. It is not clear as to when the respondent has applied for change of boarding point. The respondent purchased the ticket at Vishakapatnam and he had applied for change of boarding point at Vishakapatnam. It cannot be said that the respondent has followed the procedure prescribed therefor. In the same vein it can be said that the endorsement made by the Chief Reservation Supervisor does not have any valid and binding force for change of the boarding point for the journey from Bhadrak to Vishakapatnam.
13. The respondent not following the procedure coupled with the communication gap between the sections concerned in the Railway Department led to the inconvenience he suffered for a period of five hours being deprived of the berths which were confirmed in Coach S-8 and ultimately they were allotted berths in the Coach S-6. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the amount awarded as compensation can be scaled down to `2,500/- and the amount awarded as costs is liable to be set aside.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of `2,500/-. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.15.06.2012.
KMK*
