Delhi

StateCommission

A/634/2014

G.M. NORTHERN RAILWAY & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIRENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL - Opp.Party(s)

21 Dec 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 21.12.2017

First Appeal No. 634/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 04.03.2014 passed in complaint case No. 798/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

1. General Manager (General)

Northern Railway, Northern Division

Head Quarters Office

Baroda House

New Delhi-110001

 

2. Chief Commercial Manager (General)
   Northern Railway, Northern Division

Head Quarters Office

Baroda House

New Delhi-110001                                      ..........Appellants

 

Versus

 

Sh. Virendra Kumar Agarwal

3^RD Floor, Shiv Mahal

B-47, Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001                                            .........Respondent

                                                                  

                                                                   

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       PRESIDENT

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       MEMBER

 

1.             Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                              Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                    Yes

 

 

SALMA NOOR            -           MEMBER

 

1.     Present appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.03.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum II Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-110016 whereby the complaint of the respondent/complainant is allowed and the appellant/OP are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent/complainant.
2.     Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Sh. Virendra Kumar Agarwal with his wife Smt. AdarshAgarwalwanted to go to Bareilly to attend the ritual of 13^th day of death of his sister-in-law and for that he purchased tickets for a total fare of Rs. 485/- plus service charges of Rs. 50/- on 03.04.2008. They were to board the said train from Ghaziabad railway station at 15:57 hrs. On enquiry they came to know that the said train was late by 02:00 hrs. The stoppage time of the said train was only 2 to 3 minutes at the Ghaziabad railway station. It is alleged by the respondent/complainant that when the train reached at Ghaziabad railway station, it was found that after coach no. C-7 there was coach no. C-5 and there was no coach no. C-6 in between the coaches no. C-7 and C-5. It was alleged by the complainant that though there was frequent announcement at the Ghaziabad railway station about the late arrival of the said train but there was not a single prior announcement made about the change of the position of the coaches of the train. On enquiry it was informed that the coach no. 6 was attached at the end before the guard cabin of the train. The grievance of the respondent/complainant is that the railway department should have made essential and necessary announcement, that coach no. C-6 was not attached just after coach no. C-5. On enquiry from the TTE standing at the front of the coach no. C-5 it was informed that the coach no. C-6 was attached at the end just before the guard cabin of the train but he did not advise the complainant to board the train there itself at coach no. C-5 with its opened entry gate,as all the gates of the subsequent coaches towards the platform side were bolted from inside, rather, he directed him to go to coach no. 6 attached at the  endjust before the guard cabin. It is alleged by the complainant that he and his wife both are suffering from arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure and had low iron deficiency etc. Further they have also breathing problems and are medically advised not to run fast, therefore it was very difficult for them to run to board C-6 which was attached at the end of the train before the last guard cabin. The allegation of the respondent/complainant is that there was not a single entrance gate of any of the coaches from the coach no. 4 onwards including the coach no. C-6 was found opened and particularly the doors of the coach no. C-6, the doors were found bolted from inside. The further grievance of the respondent/complainant is that there was no TTE so it became next to impossible for both the persons being senior citizens and that to with luggage to get the entry in the said coach no. C-6 and the gate of coach no. C-6 was also found locked so they had to rush at coach no. 5 to get into the entry of the train. Allegations of the respondent/complainant isthat the entry of gate of all the subsequent coaches towards the platform side were bolted from inside and the difference between coach no. C-5 and C-6 was more than 100 meters and it was very difficult for them to cover up that distance and to entry in coach no. C-6 from C-5.It is alleged by the respondent/complainant that while complainant and his wife both were on the way to reach coach no. 6, the train started moving and when guard at the train saw them shouting,he had stopped them and with great difficulty they boarded the train.
3.     As the respondent/complainant alongwith his wife had to suffer mental torture and agony, he filed a complaint before the Ld. District Forum seeking directions against the OP to award a compensation of Rs. 1,26,000/- in his favouralongwithRs. 25,000/- towards costs.
4.     On notice OP appeared and contested the case on the ground that since the stoppage time of the train at the Ghaziabad station was only for two minutes Sh. AlokShrivastava (TTE) had advised the complainant to board the train in coach no. 5 as there were some seats already lying vacant and they could be accommodate in the said coach but complainant ignored his advice and started moving towards the coach no. 6. So far the placement of coach no. 6 at the end of the train was concerned, it was submitted that the same was done for the security reasons. It was further stated that the respondent/complainant has filed the complaint only to extract money from the railway.
5.     Both the parties have filed their evidence after going through the evidence filed by the parties, the Ld. District Forum had awarded in favour of the complainant a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.
6.     Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum present appeal is filed by the appellant/OP.
7.     We have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record ourselves.
8.     There is no dispute between the parties that the respondent/complainant alongwith his wife had performed to and fro journey from Ghaziabad to Barielyon a confirmed ticket in AC coach. It is also admitted fact that coach no. 6 was not after coach no. 5, rather it was attached at the last end and just before the guard cabin of the train. It is also admitted fact that no notice to this effect was given to the passengers, and the distance between coach no. 5 and coach no. 6 was more than 100 meters. The contention of the respondent/complainant that the TTE named Sh. AlokSrivastava of coach no. 5 did not guide them to enter from the coach no. 5 as, only coach no. 5 doors were found opened and the doors of other coaches including coach no. 6 were found closed from inside. The contention of the respondent/complainant that there was no TTE or coach attendant was present in front of gates of coach no. 6 and gates were locked from inside,therefore, it was very difficult for him and his wife to board the train. The contention of the appellant/OP is that the respondent/complainants were asked to occupy the seat in coach no. 5 but they did not agree and rather they rushed to enter in the train from coach no. 6 which was attached with the boggy of the guard.  It is an admitted fact that gates of the boggies were locked from inside except coach no. 5 and coaches were not connected serial number wise on the date of journey of respondent/complainant. Thusit was the duty of the appellant/OP to give due notice to the public that the coaches are not connected in serial wise and coach no. 6 is going to be attached at the end just before the guard cabin but admittedly no such notice/announcement was given to the passengers including respondent/complainant though the continuous announcement was made regarding the arrival of the train late by two hours which itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP. More over there is no satisfactory explanation given by the appellant/OP as to why the gates of the coaches were locked from inside and not opened even at the railway station from where many passengers were supposed to board the train. Further there was no TTE/coach attended found present at the coach no. 6 which was attached at the end of the train near the boggy of the guard. Further no evidence is filed by the appellant/OP to ascertain that boggy of coach no. 6 was attached at last due to security reasons. It is understood that respondent/complainant and his wife who are senior citizens and were suffering from severe ailments, faced lots of problems to board the train due to the negligence of appellant/OP. It was the duty of the railways to give all the necessary assistance to them for their comfortable travel as they had paid higher fare for such compartments.
9.     In view of the discussion above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
10. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be sent to Records.

 

(JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL)
PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(SALMA NOOR)
MEMBER