THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.280/2013

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2019

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.              :  President)

                                                                       Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.      :  Member

ORDER

Present: Hon’ble Joseph Mathew, Member:             

This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Petitioner’s case is that, he along with his son had travelled from Ernakulam Junction to Lokmanya Tilak Junction at Mumbai in train No. 12224 Duronto Express 3 tier A/c coach B3 on 13/06/2012 and had returned from there to Ernakulam on 16/06/2012  by train No. 12223 Duronto Express. The to and fro tickets charge was Rs.5,880/- including charge for the food. The said train was fully air conditioned point to point non-stop also. The ticket fare was also high. On 14/06/2012 many of the passengers including himself and his son were not served with lunch in the train. Few passengers who had served with the lunch started vomiting and had complaint that the food served was stale. Some passengers thrown away the lunch and was hungry. When complained to the pantry staff, it was told that the lunch had been loaded at Madagaon station Goa and their duty is only to serve the food and if the food was not available or edible they are not responsible and could do nothing in this regard. During the return journey also the same thing happened.

It is also stated that, on returning home, he lodged a complaint on 22/06/2012 giving all the details at the Railway website for grievances and suggestions. The complaint was duly registered and a complaint No. W/SR/TVC/000009911 was allotted also. Thereafter on reviewing the status of the complaint on the website, it was shown that the matter was pending before the Senior DCM, Commercial, SR, TVC. Even more than a year later the complaint is still shown as pending before the same official. From this it became clear that the Railway is not intended to take any action in this matter because of the pervasive corruption in the Railway from top to bottom.

It is further stated that he and his son were not provided with the service that was supposed to be provided by the Railway. Moreover the opposite parties have not taken any action to punish the defaulters even when the fault was pointed out for more than one year. The said act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service on their part. This caused much mental agony, financial loss and other hardships to him and to his son. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to refund the ticket charge of Rs.5,880/- and to pay Rs.55,000/- as compensation for their sufferings and also cost of the proceedings.

The 1^st opposite party in their version denied all the allegations of the petitioner against them as false and without any base. It is contended that this petition is not maintainable against them since they have not connected in anyway with the allegations raised by the petitioner and they are not the proper authority to take action against the alleged incident occurred in the said train during the journey of the petitioner from Ernakulam to Mumbai and so they are an unnecessary party in this petition and hence this petition is not maintainable against them.

It is stated that, the pantry car in Train No. 12224/12223 Duronto Express is not run by the Railway nor by any employees appointed by Railway Administration. The pantry car is exclusively run and managed by Group General Manager, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Mumbai (IRCTC) which is having separate legal entity with independent powers to control and regulate its own affairs and this organization is totally free from the Administrative control of Railway Administration. The catering unit at Madgaon is not come under the control or jurisdiction of them. The non-supply or non-availability of food in the said train is a matter directly connected with IRCTC and so Railway administration is not liable for the acts done by another agency with whom the responsibility of providing food to the passengers was entrusted. Any other genuine complaint against the Railway Administration would be properly attended and the grievance of the concerned person should be redressed. So if any shortcomings occurred from the part of IRCTC, the Corporation has to be penalized and not the Railways. They are not supposed to provide the service of food in that train as it was duly entrusted to a Corporation which was formed and working for this sole purpose. The other allegations of the petitioner also was denied as they have no direct knowledge about the alleged incidents.

It is admitted that the amount collected as ticket charge includes the charge for all the meals to the passengers but it is stated that this doesn’t mean that the cost of journey is free. Since there is no deficiency in service occurred from their part or from the part of Railway Administration, they are not liable to pay even a single rupee to the petitioner as compensation. They are not liable to compensate the petitioner in any way for the damages if any caused to the petitioner due to the deficient service of IRCTC. The petitioner can move against the IRCTC and can seek ample compensation from them. The IRCTC is the sole authority to initiate action against the person who was deputed by them to provide food to the passengers at Madgaon on the eventful day. If the agency is not doing their duty, definitely the Railway Administration will interfere and necessary legal action will be initiated against the corporation. There is no deficiency in service on their part or on the side of Railways as alleged and so they are an unnecessary party in this proceedings. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.

The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties filed a combined version with the same contentions as that of the 1^st opposite party. It is stated that they have no facts of this case or any remarks to offer in this case. Hence they also prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them.

As contended by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 in their version, the IRCTC impleaded as the supplemental 4^th opposite party in this petition. They also in their version denied all the allegations made against them as false and frivolous. It is contended that this petition is filed without any bonafides and with intent only to harass them. This petition is not maintainable either in law or 0on facts also. It is stated that they are an independent Corporation of the Government of India having permanent seal and succession having its registered office at New Delhi. It is further stated that, the petitioner is well aware of the fact that the IRCTC is not directly serving its food but has entrusted the supply and service to contractors. It is also stated that in this case at the relevant time the service was done by M/s. Amaravathy caterers Goa. The food was prepared and served by this company. The petitioner also had made complaint to the staff of the Amaravathy caterers and not before the staff of IRCTC or any other officer in the train. So if any deficiency in service is there in serving the food or any shortcomings in the quality of food served, the Amaravathy caterers are responsible for that and this petition is bad for non-joinder of the said company. It is further stated that, a complaint book always kept in that train and the petitioner has not report any complaint in that book. Without making any genuine complaint at the right time with evidence thereof the petitioner is not entitled to make allegations after lapse of years and to claim any compensation. The petitioner also has not made any complaint at their website and they are not responsible to answer complaints appears in other sites.

This petition is made with ulterior motives. No unfair trade practice or deficiency in service is there on their side as alleged and the petitioner has not suffered any inconveniences or other difficulties due to any of their acts and so they are not liable to compensate him any manner and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with compensatory cost.

The matters for determinations are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Reliefs and costs if any?

Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, Ext.s A1, A1(a), B1 to B3 and deposition of PW1.

Point No. 1: The specific case of the petitioner is that, many of the passengers including himself and his son travelled in train No. 12224 Duranto Express in 3 tier A/c coach from Ernakulam to Lokmanya Tilak on 14/06/2012 was not served with lunch. According to the petitioner since the railway had collected the charges for food along with the ticket fare they are bound to compensate him for his sufferings due to non-supply of lunch. The copy of the to and fro train tickets was produced as evidence of their journey at that train and was marked as Ext. A1 & A1(a).

            According to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3, they are not connected with the incident in any way since the IRCTC is licenced to provide food in that train and so the IRCTC is liable to compensate the petitioner if food was not supplied to the passengers or the food supplied was not edible. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 argued that the Railway Administration is having no control over the acts of IRCTC since they are an independent legal entity. It is also contended that this petition is highly belated and so not maintainable.

            According to the 4^th opposite party they are not directly serving food in that train but had entrusted the supply and service to contractors. In the instant case service was done by M/s. Amaravathy caterers Goa and so according to them M/s. Amaravathy caterers are responsible for the incident. It is also alleged that a complaint book is kept in that train and the petitioner has not made any complaint in that book or made any complaint at their website. The opposite parties also had a case that this petition is highly belated and hence not maintainable. According to the petitioner after return, he had made a complaint at the Railways Website for grievances and suggestions and had waited for one year for action in this regard from the side of the Railway. But since there was no action even after one year he was forced to approach this Forum with the complaint after one year. The petitioner produced the copy of the complaint made at the website Indian Railways Complaints & Suggestions, Complaint Reference No. W/SR/TVC/000009911 and was marked as Ext. A2. The passengers are travelling with their own problems and during their busy journey they may not be in a mental condition or may not have time to make complaints on the spot and so this delay in making complaints cannot be considered as a major issue in this regard. Moreover as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the affected party got two years’ time period for filing a petition from the date of cause of action also. So the contentions of the opposite parties regarding delay is not sustainable.

According to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3, the IRCTC is responsible for the incident and they have no control over the acts of the IRCTC also. According to the IRCTC they have entrusted the service of food to M/s. Amaravathy caterers and so the Amaravathy caterers are responsible for the non-supply of food. Thus the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are blaming the IRCTC and they in turn put the burden on the Amaravathy caterers and thereby make the petitioner run pillar to post for the redressal of his grievance. From this it seems that if Amaravathy caterers are impleaded in the petition then they may shift the responsibility to some other agency. So in such situation where the aggrieved person has to go or on which door he has to knock for a relief. Is it possible for a passenger to run before all the contractors or their agents for his reliefs? The Railway is conducting train services and had collected the ticket charge including the charge for food and so they are responsible and bound to attend the incidents happening in the trains and to take proper action whenever needed. They are bound to see that quality food is serving and was served to the passengers timely. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 has not mentioned who is entrusting the service of food to IRCTC, whether the Railway or the Government of India directly. In any case the passengers are not a party to that contract and the passengers are having direct connection only with the Railway and so the Railway is also equally liable to redress the grievances of the passengers during the journey and they cannot evade from their responsibilities by simply saying that they are not responsible. The Railway can realize the amount from the defaulter after compensating the aggrieved party.

It is to be considered that, among the passengers, there may be very old persons, children, mother with babies, diseased persons who are instructed to take medicines timely before or after meals. So in such situation one cannot even imagine non-delivery of food. Even late supply of meals may cause serious problems to the passengers. Moreover the fact that the said train was a point to point non-stop train and so the passengers could not take food from outside make the situation more serious also. So the Railway is bound to give more care and attentions to the problems of the passengers in such trains and to make sure a happy and comfortable journey to the passengers.

The petitioner was cross examined as PW1. In cross, he admitted that his allegations in his petition regarding, bribe and corruption, prevailing in the Railways is based on paper reports and hearsay evidence and not of any direct knowledge, we are not considering those aspects here.

Considering all the facts stated and evidence on record, we are of the view that, since the ticket charge including amount for the food is collected by the Railway and the fact that the passengers are having direct connection only with the Railway, the Railway is equally responsible and bound to see quality food is serving and was served to passengers timely in the said train and the non-supply of lunch to the petitioner and his son on 14/06/2012 is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Railway also even if the deficiency in service is on the part of the 4^th opposite party and so the Railway is also liable to compensate the petitioner for the difficulties suffered. Point No. 1 found accordingly. 

Point No. 2: In view of the finding in Point No. 1, this petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get reliefs. Since the petitioner had completed his journey in that train, he is not entitled to get back the ticket charge as prayed for. From the facts stated, it is found that, instead of redressing the grievance of the petitioner on getting complaint, the Railway is trying to evade from their liability by putting the responsibility on the IRCTC. This kind of irresponsible and indifferent attitude on the part of the Railway is not fair or admissible and so we are of the considered view that this kind of activities should be curtailed or stopped by imposing heavy compensation.

            In the result, the following order is passed.

            The opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation to the petitioner for his sufferings and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the whole amount will carry 7% interest per annum from the date of default till payment.     

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2019

Date of filing: 01/07/2013

                           SD/-PRESIDENT                SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Railway ticket

A1(a). Copy of Railway ticket

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1. Copy of Railway ticket

B1(a). Copy of Railway ticket

B2. History of failure coaches

B3. Daily position – sick coach search

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Ashok U Manikoth  (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None                                                           

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT