State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Northren Railways vs Jaswinderjit Singh Madaan on 3 May, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.672 of 2016
Date of institution : 06.09.2016
Date of decision : 03.05.2017
1. Northern Railways through its General Manager, New Delhi
Railway Station, Delhi.
2. Station Master, Amritsar Railway Station, Amritsar,
Both through Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern
Railway, Ferozepur.
......Appellants-Opposite Parties
Versus
Jaswinderjit Singh Madaan son of Shri H.S. Madaan, aged 57 years,
resident of C-2127, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
......Respondent- Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
2.5.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President.
Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri Karamjit Verma, Advocate. For the respondent : Ex parte.
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT :
The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 2.5.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Jaswinderjit Singh Madaan, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been allowed and the First Appeal No. 672 of 2016. 2 appellants/opposite parties were directed to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- on account of litigation expenses. It was also ordered that if the compliance of the order is not made within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order, the amount awarded shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of passing of the order till full and final recovery.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are to the effect that the complainant is a law abiding citizen and is a Senior Officer in the Oriental Insurance Company. The complainant was traveling from Amritsar to Chandigarh on 28.5.2015 to attend an official meeting at Chandigarh on Amritsar-Chandigarh Superfast Express Train No.12242 on Seat No.54, Coach No.C-1, PNR No.2748807990. The complainant used the toilet of the said train under the control of the opposite parties and after using the toilet the complainant was surprised that there was no water in the tap of the toilet. The complainant felt embarrassed as in such a situation he could not do anything. After this incident the complainant orally complained to the Train Ticket Examiner (in short, "T.T.E.") but he stated that it was not his duty and he was not responsible for any such shortcoming. The T.T.E. intimated that the Contractor was liable for such a lapse and he could complain against the contractor. But the T.T.E. refused to give the name and address of the Contractor. After the said incident the complainant lodged a written First Appeal No. 672 of 2016. 3 complaint on feed back form No.1 to TTE Maninder Singh, Mobile Phone No.97797-00720 and he duly received the complaint. After receiving illogical answer from the TTE, the complainant contacted the Station Master of Chandigarh Railway Station on reaching Chandigarh but the complainant could not get satisfactory answer. Rather the Station Master suggested the complainant that he was an officer and should not involve himself in such petty issues. The complainant is a public spirited person and has filed this complaint to fix the responsibility of the erring Railway Authorities. The main purpose of the complainant is not to get any compensation or penalty but just to make realize the concerned officials for the error so that it may not be repeated in future. Hence the complaint was filed for following reliefs:-
(i) That the responsibility for non-availability of water in the toilet of compartment should be fixed and the guilty person should be punished as per rules of the Department so that such incident should not be repeated;
(ii) Compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment faced by the complainant; and
(iii) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled to under law, equity and fair play be also granted in favour of the complainant against the opposite party.
4. Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached the District Forum with clean hands and has misrepresented the material facts. The complaint has been filed on First Appeal No. 672 of 2016. 4 false and frivolous allegations. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. On merit it was denied that there was no water in the tap of the toilet. The work of cleaning and watering was attended by labourer of M/s H.S. Service Providers on that day under the supervision of S.S.E., Amritsar. Complete watering of the train was properly attended to by the Staff of Train No.12242. It was further stated that the entire facility was provided in the train. The complainant never complained orally about anything to T.T.E. and rather delivered the feed back form to him. The complainant has leveled false allegations and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
5. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the opposite parties as none appeared on behalf of the complainant despite service and as such, was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 11.11.2016. We have also perused the records of the case minutely.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently argued that the work of cleaning and watering was outsourced to M/s H.S. Service Providers during that period under the supervision of SSE, Amritsar. As usual the complete watering of the train was properly attended to by the staff of Train No.12242 and except the complainant no other passenger complained of lack of water facility in the toilet of the said train. The complainant filed a frivolous First Appeal No. 672 of 2016. 5 complaint. The Railway Authorities have tendered affidavit of Roshan Singh, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Ex.OP1, 2/1 to rebut the evidence led by the complainant but the District Forum has wrongly ignored the same. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It has been prayed that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum be set aside.
8. Since no one represented the complainant, we have ourselves examined the records of the District Forum. The complainant had brought categorical evidence on record that the water was not available in the toilet of the said train on the fateful day and the complainant met T.T.E. Maninder Singh and handed over a written complaint to him in feed back form No.1. Thereafter the message was also sent to his mobile Phone No.97797-00720. Besides this the affidavit on oath was tendered by the complainant himself and produced other documents that he had traveled on the said train.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties and the assertion made by the complainant in his complaint and the evidence led before the District Forum.
10. A perusal of the record reveals that admittedly the complainant had made a complaint to Maninder Singh, T.T.E., who was on board of the said Train on that day. The affidavit of said person has not been filed by the opposite parties to substantiate the claim. Only the affidavit of one Roshan Singh, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railways, Ferozepur has been filed as Ex.OP1, First Appeal No. 672 of 2016. 6 2/1, who was not having any first hand information. Even the affidavit of the Service Provider or the other official, who may have supervised the cleaning and watering of the said train on that day, has not been filed. Since the affidavit of the person who was present in the said train and had first hand knowledge has not been filed by the opposite parties, therefore, presumption can very well be drawn that the averments of the complainant are true specifically when Feed Back Form Ex.C-2, which was received by Maninder Singh, T.T.E., Amritsar, clearly shows that the complainant specifically complained that there was no water in the toilet and the complainant faced harassment after passing of the stool. The said Form also bears the signatures of said Maninder Singh, T.T.E. as a token of receipt. In view of the said facts it cannot be presumed that proper evidence has been led by the opposite parties to rebut the evidence led by the complainant. The District Forum has rightly held that the contention that the work of cleaning and watering was outsourced to some private company or that the said company was looking into that matter, no laxity can be extended to the opposite parties to escape from their liability of keeping the train neat and clean or providing the facility of water, etc. therein. As a matter of fact the facts stated in the complaint have not been adequately disputed by the Railway Authorities and no particulars in the written version have been given to refute the allegations made in the complaint. Moreover, when the trains are filled with water, entries are recorded in some register maintained by such Service Providers mentioning the quantity of water filled. However, no such register has been First Appeal No. 672 of 2016. 7 produced on record by the opposite parties to substantiate their stand that the water was filled in the tanks of the said train on that date and as such, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the opposite parties.
11. In view of the discussion held above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
12. The sum of Rs.5,700/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copies of the order to them.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER May 3, 2017 Bansal