State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Dilip Majumdar vs General Manager, Eastern Rly on 7 May, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/797/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 03/07/2014 in Case No. CC/375/2013 of District Kolkata-II) 1. Sri Dilip Majumdar S/o Late Atal Behari Majumdar, 1/73, Bivek Nagar, Jadavpur, Kolkata - 700 075. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. General Manager, Eastern Rly Fairlie Place, 17, N.S. Road, Kolkata - 700 001. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Rathindra Kumar Mitra, Advocate For the Respondent: ORDER Dt. 07.05.2015 JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER
The present appeal is directed against the order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit -II, in CC No. 375 of 2013, whereby the complaint was allowed on contest with cost , compensation and punitive damages against the OP.
The Complainant's case, in brief, was as follows:
The Complainant purchased on 21.08.2013 an e-ticket for journey from Jasidih Jn. to Howrah for self , wife , sister and brother-in-law for their journey on 21.09.2013 by DN 12024 Patna-Howrah Janasatabdi Express . He was allotted the window side Seat No. 36 in Coach No. DR1. On boarding the train he found that the Seat No. 36 in Coach DR 1 was occupied by another passenger . He requested the said passenger to vacate the seat, but he refused, showing his e-ticket in which it was found that the same seat was allotted to him also. When the Ticket Checker came, the entire matter was narrated to him with a request to arrange a window side seat so that the Complainant would avoid discomfort and sufferings, as he was a patient of high blood sugar , blood pressure, knee pain and some kind of pulmonary discomfort. No help was extended by the TTE. Allegedly, after reaching home, he felt ill and consulted Dr. G.C. Saha at night . He was advised complete rest for 7 days and thereafter it took about two weeks to recover. Because of the sufferings during his journey for about 5 hours , he filed a complaint before the Ld. Forum below seeking a compensation of Rs. 2 lakh from the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place Kolkata 700001.
The complaint has been contested by the OP i.e., General Manager, Eastern Railway, who in their written version, contended , inter alia , that the Ld. Forum below does not have territorial jurisdiction in adjudicating the complaint matter as the Train No. 12023/12024 Howrah-Patna-Patna-Howrah Janasatabdi Express belongs to the East Central Railway administration having its Headquarters at Hajipur and the reserved coaches of the said train are manned by the ticket checking staff of Patna under East Central Railway. It was also asserted that the Complainant's allegation about allotment of Seat No. 35 is wrong as Seat No 36 was allotted as per Reservation Chart and both the Seat Nos. 35 and 36 are window side seats. Eastern Railway was in no way responsible for any deficiency in service.
Upon examination of the e-ticket under PNR No. 6322 716431 booked through IRCTC website for journey of the Complainant and other 3 passengers in second sitting class for 21.09.2013 from Jasidih to Howrah Junction Ld. Forum below observed that seat No. 36 was allotted to the Complainant while seat No. 35 was allotted to another passenger named Mr. Rakesh Gupta. Ld. Forum below also observed that the Complainant and his family members boarded the train at Jasidih Station . It was also noted that one person named, U.N. Mishra had reserved from Patna to Jasidih against Seat No. 36. The seat being vacated by him at Jasidih, the Complainant should have occupied the said Seat No. 36. But as per the reservation chart, the Seat No. 35 was booked by one Rakesh Gupta for his journey from Patna to Howrah. In that case, the Complainant's allegation that his Seat No. 36 was occupied by a non-reserved passenger at the behest of the TTE is well proved which implies that valid reserved seat of the Complainant was sold by the TTE to an unauthorized person. Accordingly, the Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint on contest with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- and with direction upon OP to pay a compensation of Rs. 35,000/- to the Complainant for causing mental pain, agony, harassment and sufferings, apart from payment of punitive damages of Rs. 5,000/-, which was ordered to be deposited to the Forum.
The present Appellant being the Complainant in the complaint case has filed the appeal seeking higher compensation i.e., Rs.2,00,000/- by the Respondent/General Manager, Eastern Railway. The matter was heard ex parte as the Respondent, in spite of having received the notice , remained absent on the date of final hearing and the authorized representative of the Appellant was present.
It is the case of the Appellant that though Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint , the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- only vis -a-vis his mental agony , harassment and suffering is insufficient and the deficiency in service on the part of the OP / Respondent Railway Authority was such that the amount of compensation shall under no circumstances be less than Rs. 2 lakh. In support of his claim, the Complainant/Appellant has referred to a newspaper report published in The Telegraph on 23.01.2014 showing that the Railways have been directed by a Consumer Forum in Delhi to pay Rs. 60,000/- as punitive damages to a retired High Court Judge and his family for shifting their seats to another coach without informing them. In another newspaper report, as mentioned by the Appellant in course of furnishing reply to the questionnaire of the OP dated 27.03.2014 , it was asserted that the Ld. Consumer Forum, New Delhi had penalized and directed the Railways to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to a bonafide passenger , being a lawyer , for getting wounded and suffered by dilapidated , scattered , sharp and open portion of the fan cover of the train , in which he was travelling.
We have carefully gone through the memorandum of appeal together with the impugned order and other documents placed along by the Appellant and heard the authorized representative of the Appellant on the date of final hearing.
The main allegation of the Complainant / Appellant was that he 'suffered inexplicably for pulmonary discomfort and knee pain more so because of very narrow space between the seat and end wall of train coach apart from window side seat for five hours in the daytime' which caused severe sufferings and accordingly , he wanted Ld. Forum below to penalize Eastern Railway moneywise heavily.
The fact remains that as per the reservation chart pertaining to the Train No.12024 for journey between Jasidih and Howrah on 21.09.2013, the Seat No. 36 was allotted to the Complainant / Appellant but as alleged by the Complainant / Appellant and noted by the Ld. Forum below the said Seat No. 36 was not availed by the holder of the e-ticket i.e., the Complainant / Appellant. The Complainant, however, mentioned in his own petition of complaint in the second page that the person occupying Seat No. 36, showed 'his e-ticket in which it was found that the same seat no. was allotted to him also'. If that is the case, it is hard to believe that the TTE sold a ticket for seat No. 36 to an unauthorized person . In any case ,the Complainant / Appellant did not avail the reserved seat that caused suffering to him. Ld. Forum below appears to have dealt with all aspects of the matter excepting the fact as noted above and allowed the complaint with a compensation of Rs. 35,000/- apart from other relief. The grievance of the Appellant stating that the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- is not enough compared to some reported cases, can not, however, be accepted as a cogent ground for higher compensation particularly in view of the fact that the cases referred to are not given in detail showing that the Appellant's case and the cases referred to are of similar nature in every respect. Further, there is no hard and fast rule that the compensation must be similar, even if the complaints are of similar nature. Every case has its own facts and grounds of grievance and is decided by such facts and grounds . The amount of compensation in one can not be replicated in another case automatically. Ld. Forum's order is, therefore, decided to be not interfered with. The appeal, in the result. does not succeed. Hence, Ordered that the appeal be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the Respondent . There shall be no order as to costs. The impugned order stands confirmed. [HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER