Thread: south central railway

C.C.No.512 of 2007

BETWEEN:

Gudavalli Venkateswara Rao,

R/o. Pittabanda Village,

Vinukonda Mandal,

Guntur District. … Complainant

AND

1. The General Manager,

South Central Railway,

Rail Bhavan, Secunderabad.

2. The Divisional Manager,

South Central Railway,

Guntur.

3. The Station Master,

Railway Station, Vinukonda.

4. The Superintendent,

RMS, Gunthakal. … Opposite party

This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 12-11-09 in the presence of Sri B.S.R.Krishna Prasad, Advocate for complainant and of Sri K.V.G.M.Krishna Rao, Advocate for OPs 1 to 3, Sri P.S.Kumar, Advocate for OP4, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for deficiency of service for mental agony, pain and anguish meted out by the complainant and to award interest from the date of travel to the date of payment and for costs.

The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant purchased a second class ticket for Rs.51/- to travel from Vinukonda to Bellari and stepped into Guntur – Hubli 303 passenger on 23-11-05 at Venukonda Railway Station. The complainant occupied a bay in compartment No.96448/A along with other passengers. By the time train reached Markapur Railway Station some persons belongs to RMS staff stepped into the compartment in which complainant traveling and drove away the other passengers who occupied another bay stating that it is intended and reserved for RMS staff and then they came to the second bay which was occupied by complainant and other passengers. Thereafter by the time train reached Nandyal Railway Station, complainant went to lavatory situated in other end of the same compartment for answering the calls of nature and returned within 10 minutes. By the time the complainant reached, the RMS staff occupied complainant bay forcibly throwing away the suit case on the luggage booth and kept an iron mesh obstructing the entry into their bay in the absence of complainant. The complainant when questioned them they derisively laughed and loudly replied to go and tell the same to Station Master, Vinukonda. In the altercation, complainant lost his water bottle and they caused serious inconvenience to his peaceful journey. The RMS staff was teasing a girl aged about ten years along with two boys in the RMS staff and chit chatting together which was reported to RMS constable by the complainant, but no action taken. The complainant further submits that by the time train reached Chalam Railway Station, hundreds of men and women with big wooden logs entered the train and caused much inconvenience to complainant and other passengers by putting wooden logs under the seats and across the path way by blocking the exit of train and also hang wooden bundles to the windows with the help of iron hooks which caused hindrance to passengers and nothing is prevented by the Railway Authorities. The complainant informed the same to authorities of opposite parties on 02-12-05. The complainant issued legal notice to railways on 21-09-06 claiming damages of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. Hence, the complaint.

The Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Guntur filed counter on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3, which is in brief as follows:

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is subjected to strict proof of each and every allegation made by him. It is true that the complainant purchased a second class ticket to travel from Vinukonda to Bellary and boarded the train No.303 passenger at Vinukonda Railway Station on 23-11-05 that the RMS staff stepped into the train at Cumbum Railway Station but not at Markapur. The Railway Mail Staff are permitted to occupy any one or two bays in any general compartment to discharge the duties of collection/distribution and sorting of mails. A sticker was pasted out side the compartment to indicate that the bay is reserved for RMS staff. On the day in question, soon after entry of RMS staff into the compartment, they found the general public occupying the bay intended for them duly removing the sticker pasted. They were informed about the ear marking of seats in their favour, politely and all the passengers occupying the bay have vacated and occupied another bay. The RMS staff has not thrown away the suit case of complainant. On enquiry the inspector of RMS.AG I Sub Dn. Ananthapur submitted his letter dt.27-11-06 that there was no altercation between the complainant/passengers and RMS staff. The complainant is subject to strict proof of the allegation that he lost his water bottle and put to serious inconvenience. The other allegation that RMS staff teased a girl aged about 10 years was also denied. Inquiry was conducted in this regard by the Divisional Security Commandant/RPF/Guntur and found that no complaint has been received to RPF. The allegation that hundreds of men and women entered the train with wooden logs and caused inconvenience to public and railway authorities have not taken any action is also denied. But one woodcutter was found carrying the wood bundles. Raid was conducted at Nandyal and seized the fire wood bundles and one woodcutter was arrested and he was imposed with suitable fine by the court for pulling alaram chain. Two bays in general compartments are being reserved exclusively for RMS staff to enable them to discharge their duties. The practice of earmarking the seats in general compartment is also available in various other trains where there is no provision of exclusion RMS compartment. The allegation that the opposite parties not replied to the letters of complainant is denied as the complainant was suitably replied with letter dt.12-01-06. There was no negligence of duties on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

The opposite parties 1 and 3 filed adoption memo and adopted the version of 2nd opposite party.

The 4th opposite party filed affidavit and contents thereof are as follows:

The RMS section viz. AG 31 IN functions daily (except on certain holidays) from Cumbum RS to Guntakal RS by 303 passenger train. On 23-11-05, as usual the designated RMS section carrying postal bags functioned in II class railway compartment No.83415/AB but not in 96448/A as stated by the complainant from Cumbum RS to Guntakal RS with reserved accommodation of 10 seats earmarked by the railways. The staff authorized to work with the section in one Mail guard only and Sri P.Somasekharaiah worked as mail guard on 23-11-05. It was observed by the mail guard that the reservation slip pasted on the bogie at Guntur RS point was removed ad some passengers including the complainant were sitting in the reserved accommodation. The mail guard entered the compartment meant for RMS and requested all the passengers to vacate the earmarked portion for RMS purpose. An iron grilled gate provided by the RMs department was then kept by the mail guard in between the reserved accommodation and the other portion of railway bogie to ensure safety to the postal mail from Cumbum RS to Guntakal RS. The train left Cumbum RS at 12.20 hrs and reached Guntakal RS at 20.20 hrs on 23-11-05. No untoward incident took place on 23-11-05 as alleged by the complainant. The allegation that RMS staff did not heed to his demand and that they were teasing a girl aged about 10 years are totally incorrect and fabricated nature. On verification it was found that the compartment No.96448/A stated to have been occupied by the complainant was not at all hauled by 303 passenger train on 23-11-05. This is not a case of deficiency of service by RMS department. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

The complainant filed affidavit in support of his version reiterating the facts mentioned therein. The 4th opposite party filed affidavit in support of his version reiterating the facts therein.

On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A7 are marked. Ex.B1 and B2 are marked for 4th opposite party. Ex.B3 to B6 are marked for 2nd opposite party.

Ex.A1 is the letter addressed by complainant to opposite parties with postal receipts, Ex.A2 is the acknowledgement, Ex.A3 is the letter addressed by General Manager’s Office, South Central Railway, Secunderabad to complainant. Ex.A4 is the letter addressed by office of DRM, SCR Guntur to the complainant. Ex.A5 is the letter addressed by Chief Commercial Manager, SCR to the complainant stating his complaint was forwarded to Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Guntur for necessary action. Ex.A6 is the legal notice got issued by the complainant to opposite parties. Ex.A7 is the postal acknowledgment.

Ex.B1 is the letter addressed by DRM Office, SCR. Ex.B2 is the daily report mail guard, Ex.B3 is the letter addressed to Superintendent, RMS, Guntur by the Inspector RMS, Anathapur. Ex.B4 is the letter addressed to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, SCR, Guntur by Superintendent RMS, Guntakal. Ex.B5 is the enquiry report. Ex.B6 is the letter addressed to complainant by the office of DRM SCR, Guntur.

Now the points for consideration are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled?

POINTS 1 & 2

The case of complainant is that he purchased a ticket with an intention to travel from Vinukonda to Bellari in Guntur – Hubli 303 passenger on 23-11-05 and boarded the train at Venukonda Railway Station. When the time train reached Markapur Railway Station some persons belongs to RMS staff stepped into the compartment in which he was traveling and drove away the other passengers who occupied another bay stating that it is intended and reserved for RMS staff. Thereafter the train reached Nandyal Railway Station, complainant went to lavatory and by the time he retuned from lavatory, the RMS staff occupied complainant bay forcibly throwing away the suit case on the luggage booth and kept an iron mesh obstructing entry into their bay in absence of complainant. In the altercation, complainant lost his water bottle and which caused serious inconvenience to his peaceful journey. It is also the case of complainant that RMS staff was teasing a girl aged about ten years. When the train reached Chalam Railway Station, hundreds of men and women with big wooden logs entered the train and caused much inconvenience to complainant and others. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

The train in which the complainant was traveling is a passenger train. Moreover the complainant occupied the reserved bay intended for RMS staff. It is the case of opposite parties 1 to 3 that on conducting enquiry they came to know that RMS staff boarded the train at Cumbum Railway Station and occupied the bay reserved for them but not at Markapur as alleged by the complainant. Further a sticker was pasted out side the compartment to indicate that the bay is reserved for RMS staff. After boarding the train, the RMS staff requested the passengers to vacate the bay reserved for them. In support of their contentions, the opposite parties filed Ex.B3 to B6. Ex.B3 is the letter addressed to Superintendent, RMS, Guntur by the Inspector RMS, Anathapur shows that the RMS staff boarded the train at Cumbum Railway Station for conveyance of postal mail bags but they have not boarded the train at Markapur as alleged by the complainant and that the general public occupied the reserved seats of RMS staff and that at the request of RMS staff all the public vacated the seats reserved for RMS along with complainant. The allegation that the complainant luggage was kept in luggage box in his absence is not correct and other complaint of complainant is that RMS staff teased a girl is also not true and that if the complainant reported the same to RPF constable, he kept quite without taking any action is also fabricated one. As seen from Ex.B5 enquiry report that no inconvenience was caused to any passenger in the coach wherein the RMS staff traveled and that Ex.B5 also shows that raid was conducted in the train and seized fire wood bundles which were auctioned and as a matter of fact the train in which the complainant traveled runs with great rush and passengers traveling in general coach would naturally face some hardships like obstruction at path, over crowdedness etc.

Thus as seen from the documents Ex.B1 to B6 it clearly shows that the train in which the complainant was traveling is a passenger train that runs with heavy rush and that frequently the RPF people are conducting raids for arresting the activities of wood cutters and inspite of taking care the wood cutters are entering into the compartments and causing inconvenience to general public. There was no specific inconvenience caused to complainant. The inconvenience that is being faced by other passengers is due to heavy rush in train and the same is expected to cause to complainant also. Moreover, in this case the complainant has no reservation and he occupied the seat reserved for RMS staff for doing their regular postal service duties. The passenger who is traveling in passenger train without any reservation that too in a heavy rush train, he cannot expect comfort journey. This is a complaint of unreserved passenger against the reserved staff of RMS.

In the circumstances of the case and in view of fore going discussion, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of case, each party shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 20th day of November, 2009.