KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 270/2018
JUDGMENT DATED: 03.09.2019
(Against the Order in C.C. 283/2016 of CDRF, Malappuram)
PRESENT :
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Commercial Branch, Palakkad Division.
- Station Master, Tanur Railway Station.
(By Adv. S. Renganathan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Anilkumar. T, Thayyil House, Tanur P.O, Pin-676 302.
(Party in person)
JUDGMENT
SRI. RANJIT. R: MEMBER
Opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed this appeal against the Order dated 28.02.2018 in C.C. No. 283/2016 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram, in short the District Forum, by which the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant together with cost of Rs. 25,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant had reserved two tickets to travel from Tanur to Ernakulam on 19.04.2016 in AC chair car of Train No. 16303 having seat Nos. 70 and 71. On that day there was no AC chair car and instead it was provided with 3 tier AC coach. The AC coach had no seats having seat Nos. 70 and 71. Therefore complainant and his wife were forced to travel in ordinary compartment. Complainant booked tickets in AC chair car because his wife who was accompanying him was sick and she required clean and cool atmosphere for her journey. Since atmosphere of AC coach was not available in ordinary compartment her condition aggravated and complainant was forced to spend about Rs. 50,000/- more for her treatment. He filed a complaint before the railway authorities at Ernakulam and immediate response was not available from the authorities. Therefore he filed complaint claiming Rs. 50,000/- which was spent for treating his wife on account of the tiresome journey in the ordinary compartment, and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony.
3. The opposite parties filed version denying the claim of the complainant as follows: The Travelling Ticket Inspector in 3 tier AC coach in Kannur-Ernakulam Intercity Express contacted commercial controller and divisional office, Palakkad in connection with non-attachment of AC chair car coach and availability of 3 tier AC coach in the train and he informed that passengers would be accommodated in the AC coach and if they were not amenable, they would be given lower class certificate accordingly. Thus on 19.04.2016 instead of AC chair car coach, 3 tier AC coach was attached in the train. In AC 3 tier coach only 64 berths or seats were available, whereas in the AC chair car, 72 passengers had booked seats. All the booked passengers were provided seating facility in 3rd AC coach with available berth. The complainants were informed that 3rd AC coach was attached on that day and they can travel with available seating capacity therein and complainants also had agreed for that. All passengers who booked seat Nos. 65 to 72 had agreed to travel in the available 3rd AC coach. No passengers travelled in 3rd AC coach, requested for any lower class certificate. The complainant and his wife had travelled in AC coach up to their destination and they have never requested the Travelling Ticket Inspector to settle the issue and no complaint was received by him during his working hours on that day. The ticket produced by the complainant shows that it was initialed by T.T.I for their travel in the AC coach. If they have not travelled in the AC coach as alleged by them, the T.T.I would have endorsed on the ticket for issuing low class certificate on the ticket. If that be so, they would get necessary refund from the destination and would have provided accommodation in non-AC coach. For the safety and convenience of the reserved passengers railway had provided 3 tier coach in the place of AC chair car coach. It is higher class berth coach. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party. Hence complaint is to be dismissed.
4. Evidence in the case consisted of proof affidavits filed by the complainant and opposite parties and Exts. A1 to A6 marked on the side of complainant and Exts. B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite parties.
5. The District Forum appreciating the materials produced and considering the rival contentions found that the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service in not providing seat in AC compartment to the complainant even though they have booked for the same. The District Forum on the basis of this finding passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by this order the appellants have filed this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the complainants had booked two seats for their journey on 19.04.2016 in train No. 16306 in AC chair car from Tanur to Ernakulam. But due to some technical defects the said AC coach was withdrawn from service and in its place 3 tier AC coach was attached. It has a seating capacity of 80 passengers and sleeping berths for 64 passengers. All the passengers who have reserved AC chair car were provided accommodation in 3 tier AC coach and all the passengers travelled to their respective destination in 3 tier AC coach including the complainant. The allegation of the complainant that he was forced to travel in ordinary compartment up to Ernkulam is false. In Ext. A5 which is a paper publication produced by the complainant himself, it can be seen that the statement given by the complainant to the press is that the complainant and his wife had travelled up to Thrissur in the 3 tier AC coach. Even though it is proved beyond doubt that the complainant had travelled to his destination after availing higher class service i.e; 3 tier AC coach in the place of AC chair car, the lower Forum has awarded an exorbitant amount to the complainant.
7. The respondent who was present in person contended that he had booked two tickets with seat Nos. 70 & 71 in AC chair car to travel from Tanur to Ernakulam only because of the fact that his wife had undergone surgery for liver transplantation and thus she needed cool atmosphere and pure air. On the date of travel the AC chair car was absent and for the facilities of the passengers who reserved the seats in AC chair car, a 3 tire AC coach was provided. But seat Nos. 70 and 71 were absent in the 3 tier AC coach and so they were forced to travel in ordinary compartment up to Ernakulam. The complainant has filed a complaint before the Railway authorities at Ernakulam which is marked as Ext. A2. Opposite parties had themselves admitted that there were only 64 seats available in the newly attached 3 tier AC coach though 72 passengers were booked in the AC chair car. Since there was no seat available for the complainant he was compelled to travel in the ordinary coach, is the contention of the respondent/complainant.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent/complainant who was present in person. It is an admitted fact that the complainant and his wife had booked seat Nos. 70 and 71 in train No. 16306 in AC chair car from Tanur to Ernakulam and that the said AC chair car was withdrawn from service and in its place 3 tier AC coach was attached. It is also admitted that AC chair car was having seating facility of 72 passengers whereas 3 tier AC coach was having seating facility of 64 passengers only. So naturally when accommodating 72 passengers in this coach, there will be congestion as the seating capacity is less compared to the AC chair car. The allegation of the complainant is that they were allotted seat Nos. 70 & 71 but the 3 tier AC coach was not having seat Nos. 70 & 71 and therefore the complainant and his wife were forced to travel in an ordinary compartment. Perusing Ext. A1 ticket it is noted that the T.T.I has put initials in the ticket which proves that the complainant had travelled in 3 tier AC coach from Tanur. The T.T.I has also given explanation to this effect in Ext. B1. In Ext. A5 the paper publication produced by the complainant it is mentioned that the complainant had travelled in 3 tier AC coach from Tanur up to Thrissur and from Thrissur they travelled in ordinary coach even though they booked an AC chair car. Opposite parties had admitted that the AC chair car was having seating capacity of 72 passengers, whereas 3 tier AC coach has only seating capacity of 64 passengers, naturally there will be congestion in that coach and the passengers would have face much discomfort. From Ext. A6 it can be seen that the complainant’s wife was a patient having liver problem and she had undergone liver transplantation. The above facts clearly shown that the complainant had suffered much difficulty for travelling in the 3 tier AC coach up to Thrissur and from Thrissur to Ernakulam they had to travel in the ordinary coach as there was congestion in the AC 3 tier coach. Complainant had suffered much mental agony and hardship due to the acts/omissions on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant is to be adequately compensated. The District Forum did not consider the Exts. A1 and A5 and came to a wrong conclusion that the complainant had travelled from Tanur to Ernakulam in ordinary compartment and awarded an exorbitant amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as cost to the complainant. The order of the District Forum has no nexus with the injury sustained to the complainant. Since opposite party has provided 3 tier AC coach to accommodate the passengers including the complainant and as per Ext. A5 the complainant had travelled in this AC coach up to Thrissur, we feel that the amount of compensation is to be reduced to Rs. 12,500/- and the cost is to be reduced to Rs. 2,500/-. In this circumstance we feel just and proper to modify the order of the District Forum by awarding an amount of Rs. 12,500/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as costs.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum as follows: The appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 12,500/- as compensation and also to pay Rs. 2,500/- as cost to the respondent/complainant.
The respondent/complainant can realize the amount to Rs. 15,000/- awarded as compensation and cost from the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellants, by filing proper application. Balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- is to be released to the appellant on filing application.
Parties to suffer their respective costs.
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
