Kerala

StateCommission

A/356/2019

ASOK U MANIKOTH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE STATION MANAGER-KOZHIKKODE RAILWAY STATION - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

06 Jan 2020

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.356/19

    JUDGMENT DATED: 06.01.2020 

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN          : PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH                                            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A                                            : MEMBER

SHRI. RADHAKRISHNAN R.K                                    : MEMBER

Ashok U Manikoth,

“Adithya”, 3/1619, P.K. Panickar Raod,

Kozhikkode-673 011.                                                        : APPELLANT

 

            Vs.

 

1. The Station Manager,

Kozhikkode Railway Station,

Southern Railways, Kozhikkode-673 002.

 

2. The Divisional Manager,

Palakkad Railway Divisional Office,

Palakkad-678 002.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

3. The Station Manager,

Hazrat Nizamudeen Railway Station,

Northern Railways, New Delhi-110 013.

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE  K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

The complainant in CC.279/2013 is in appeal, aggrieved by the Order dated 10.5.2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikkode (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) dismissing his complaint.

2.      The appellant had approached the District Forum claiming refund of an amount of Rs.25,000/- being the amount paid by him for the purchase of a ticket from Nizamudeen Railway Station in Delhi to Kozhikode by Train No.12618 Mangala Lakshadweep Express on 30.5.2013.  He had travelled in the Two-Tier A/c coach A-2.  His ticket Number was PNR-2444032527 and the cost of the ticket was Rs.2890/-.  According to him, by the time the train reached Agra, the Air Conditioning system failed and it was not repaired thereafter. The passengers had to face the discomfort of unbearable heat throughout the journey. A certification was made by the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) on the ticket of the appellant enabling him to claim refund of a proportionate amount for failure of the Air conditioning facility.  The appellant also alleged that as soon as the endorsement was made by the TTE, his bed roll was removed by the attenders informing him that he was not entitled to use the same, since he was no longer a passenger of an A/c coach. According to the appellant, he had purchased the ticket for the purpose of travelling comfortably during the hot summer season, but that, such comfort was denied by the Railway authorities.  The bath rooms were dirty.  For the above reasons, it was alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Railways for which, he claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/- as penalty and a further amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation, apart from refund of the ticket amount.

3.      The complaint was contested by the opposite parties.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed a joint version contending that, they were not the proper authorities to take action in the matter.  According to them, the A/c was functioning well when the train started from Delhi but that, the breakdown occurred after the train left Agra.  It was an unforeseen event which does not amount to deficiency in service.  Since the defect could not be rectified, the passengers were issued with lower class certificates enabling them to claim refund.  Accordingly refund was also given to the appellant.  For the above reasons, it was contended that the appellant was not entitled to any further relief.  The 3^rd opposite party also put forward contentions, more or less on the same lines as the contentions of 1^st and 2^nd  opposite parties.

4.      The evidence in the case consists of affidavits filed the parties.  Exts.A1 & A2 series and B1 & B2 series documents were also marked.

5.      The District Forum considered the respective contentions and found that though the Air conditioning system had failed during the journey after the train left Agra, the same were not attributable to any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the failure of A/c being the consequence of an unforeseen event.  In view of the above the respondents had issued certificates to the passengers entitling them to refund of a portion of the ticket fare paid by them.  Accordingly, the appellant had also received the refund.  Therefore, the appellant was held not entitled to recover anything more from the respondents.  It is aggrieved by the said order that this appeal is filed.

6.      This appeal comes before us for admission. The appellant has informed us by addressing a letter that he has no further oral submissions to be made in this appeal.  He has requested us to consider the matter on the basis of the statements made in the Appeal Memorandum and to decide the issues.

7.      Having considered the various grounds raised in the Appeal Memorandum anxiously, we are not satisfied that the order of the District Forum calls for any interference in appeal.  This is for the reason that, the case of the respondents is that, though there was a failure of the air conditioning system, the same was due to unforeseen circumstances.  There is nothing on record to show that the said contention is not correct.  In view of the unforeseen failure of the air conditioning system the respondents had immediately issued instructions for the passengers to be given certificates entitling them to claim refund of a portion of the ticket fare paid by them.  Accordingly, such certificates were issued to the appellant also.  It is not in dispute that he has claimed such refund.  The above being the state of affairs, we find that District Forum was right in holding that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.  In the absence of any deficiency in service, the appellant is not entitled to claim any further amount from the respondents.  The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.

In the light of the above discussion we find no grounds to admit this appeal.  The same is accordingly dismissed.

 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

BEENAKUMARI.A : MEMBER

 

RADHAKRISHNAN  R.K: MEMBER

 

VL.