State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Station Manager & Anr vs S.Jayaraman on 29 September, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry Heading1 Heading2 First Appeal No. A/551/2022 ( Date of Filing : 19 Dec 2022 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. The station manager & anr Southern railway coimbatore 641018 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. S.Jayaraman 6/125, 3rd street, P.M.samy colony RS puram coimbatore 641002 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH PRESIDENT PRESENT: Dated : 29 Sep 2023 Final Order / Judgement IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Hon'ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 551 of 2022 [Against the order dated 29.07.2022, passed in RBT/C.C.No.29 of 2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Erode.] Friday, the 29th day of September, 2023 1. The Station Manager, Southern Railway, Coimbatore - 641018. 2. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Salem Division, Salem - 636 005. ... Appellant/Opposite Parties - Vs - S.Jayaraman, S/o Shanmuga Nadar, No.6/125, 3rd Street, P.M. Samy Colony, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore - 641 002. ... Respondent/ Complainant For the Appellants/Opposite Parties : M/s. R.Kumar For the Respondent/Complainant : Served called absent This appeal came before me for final hearing on 28.08.2023, and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:- O R D E R
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed by the Southern Railways, who are the opposite parties, in RBT/C.C.No.29 of 2022 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Erode, and they challenge the order dated 29.07.2022, passed by the said Commission in partly allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent herein as Complainant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their respective rankings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
3. The case of the complainant is that he had booked a ticket No. 57585520 under PNR No.420-1041812 for travelling in Train No.12515 from Coimbatore to Chennai on 26.10.2014 and, as per the said ticket, he was allotted Lower Berth No.12 in Coach No.S4. When the complainant came to the station to board the train at 21.40 hours on 26.10.2014, there was a heavy crowd in the Coach. With great difficulty, the complainant had reached Berth No.12 and he was shocked to see that the berth allotted for him was occupied by the unreserved passengers. When the complainant informed them that he was having a reserved ticket and asked them to vacate the seat, he was abused by them in filthy language. The complainant was travelling by standing, expecting the help of the TTE to vacate the persons in berth No.12 and enable him to occupy the seat, but the TTE did not turn up. The complainant was having urinary tract problem and because of the travel by standing all along and finding difficulty in a crowdy atmosphere to reach even the lavatory to answer the calls by nature, he suffered health complication, which drove him to consult Dr.M.Velliyangiri, at whose instruction, he took a scan and, on seeing the report, the doctor had advised him to get admitted in the hospital as an inpatient to take treatment for 10 days. But, since there was no attendant to look after him, he went to Coimbatore, where as per the advice of Dr.R.Ramalingam, he was taking treatment continuously at R.S.Puram Vedhanayagam Hospital and then he got himself admitted in the hospital and had undergone surgery for the issue in the urinary tract valve, for which, he had spent Rs.52,000/- towards hospital expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards medicine and Rs.4,000/- towards transportation and food, thus, he had totally spent a sum of Rs.68,700/-. This is a result of the failure on the part of the Railways in providing proper service by ensuing his travel in the berth allotted to him against a reserved ticket Thus, by alleging deficiency of service against the opposite parties, the complaint was filed by him seeking to direct the opposite parties to pay to him a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs; Rs.68,700/- the amount spent by him for medical expenses with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; and Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service for causing mental agony.
4. The said claim was resisted by the second opposite party by filing a written version, which was adopted by the first opposite party, stating that the complainant had booked ticket No.57585520/PNR No.420-1041812 in Train No.12515 for travelling in Berth No.12 of coach No.S4, on 26.10.2014. Except this fact, all other allegations are imaginary, untrue and denied as false. The allegations of the complainant that the coach was occupied by un-reserved passengers and that several persons were standing at the entrance of the coach and hence, he struggled to get into the coach and when he reached berth No.12, he was surprised to see that berth No.12 was occupied by some other persons and when he demanded to vacate, they misbehaved with him and that he was expecting the TTE to solve the issue and that he had travelled throughout the journey by standing and that he was unable to reach the toilet for his urgent needs and he reached the Central Junction on 27.10.2014 with ill health and that he was forced to stay in his relative's home and that the Doctor advised him to take 10 days rest and that, for performance of a surgery, he was advised by the Doctor and he got admitted in Vedhanayakam Hospital at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore and that he spent Rs.52,000/- towards hospital expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards medicine and Rs.4,000/- towards transportation and food and that the opposite parties had not arranged for the complainant to get his berth and, due to that, he fell ill and was hospitalized, are all false, baseless and untenable. It is further stated that any compensation can be claimed by the passenger only before the Railway Claims Tribunal as per Railway Claims Tribunal Act. As per Section 13 and Section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini.
5. It is further stated that the train in which the complaint underwent journey is operated weekly once i.e. Sunday. The complainant has not made any complaint at the time of his journey. If the averments and statements of the complainant are true, he would have made a complaint to the Guard, Railway police or other officials who were present in the train, but he never did so. The complainant had not even made any complaint at the toll free number also. If the complainant had made any complaint or grievance by any one of those modes, it would have been solved before the train could reach the next station, if it was true. The complainant wantonly did not opt any mode of complaint at any point of time during his journey. The complainant may suffer from the ailment as stated by him due to the age factor and his previous health issues. The complainant is trying to meet out his medical expenses from opposite parties by making untenable allegations against them. The opposite parties have nothing to do with the ailments suffered by the complainant. He had access to the Toilets available in both sides of the coach and the rest room is very near to Berth No.12. Hence, his contention that he was unable to reach the rest room and he travelled all along by standing in the train is highly imaginary. He is trying to make unjust gains from the public money. Considering the welfare of the complainant as being a senior citizen, the Railway has allotted him the lower berth for his comfortable journey. But, the complainant has hurled baseless and imaginary allegations against the opposite parties. The complainant has not filed sufficient proof that he had travelled all along by standing and he was unable to reach the rest room to answer the calls of nature. The documents filed by the complainant are not sufficient enough to prove his averments and allegations. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit, 20 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A20. On the side of the opposite parties, no document was filed.
7. The District Commission, after considering the materials available on record, and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society (Appellant) Vs. M.Lalitha (dead) through Lrs. & Ors. (Respondents) - 2004(1) Supreme 326; has come to the conclusion that, as per Section 100 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986), the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and there is no impediment under Section 13(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, to entertain the complaint unless there is a clear bar. As seen from Ex.A7-the reply letter issued by the Southern Railway in the RTIA addressed to the complainant the opposite party has answered "Query 01 & 05: The Coach S-4 of T.No.12515 of 26.10.2014 was unmanned." Thus, it is clear that non-availability of the TTE in the S-4 Coach on 26.10.2014 was proved and as such there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, thereby, the District Commission has directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for damages and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the litigation. That apart, the District Commission has also directed the opposite parties to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of Consumer Legal AID Account. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite parties.
8. Heard the submissions of the counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the materials placed on record. There was no representation for the Respondent.
9. It is the submission of the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum since, as per Section 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the consumer forum has no power or authority to deal with the complaint related to any untoward incident of railways. In view of such clear statutory bounds, the District Commission ought not to have entertained the complaint. In this regard, it would be appropriate to rely upon the order delivered by this Commission in F.A.No.312 of 2014 in C.C.No.114 of 2013, in the case of The Union of India vs. S.C.Mariappan, wherein this Commission has held that:
"12. In the light of the foregoing discussion that revolved around the distinction between matters falling under the category of accidents/untoward incident connected to railways and of claims arising from service deficiencies, we cull out that, regarding the former category, in view of Section 13(1A) of the RCT Act read with the clause of bar under Section 15 thereof, by ousting jurisdiction of all courts, exclusive jurisdiction is conferred only upon the RCT to decide the claims over accidents/untoward incidents and other instances as specified in Section 123(c) of the Railway Act, thereby, the Consumer Forum cannot entertain any such case, but, at the same time, regarding the latter category of matters arising from service deficiencies and negligence, in view of the wide coverage given for the term 'service' in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act that includes transport sector/Railways also, undoubtedly, the consumer forum can very well have jurisdiction to try such cases."
10. From a reading of the above order, it is clear that, in respect of service deficiencies and negligence, the District Commission can very well deal with the complaints. Coming to the merit of the case, we find that it is the specific allegation of the complainant that he had reserved a ticket for travelling in train No. 12515 on 26.10.2014, from Coimbatore to Chennai and he was allotted Berth No.12, in coach No.S4. When he went to the station to board the train, there was a heavy crowd inside the coach and he found it difficult to get into the coach and when he reached berth No.12, with great difficulty, he was surprised to see the berth reserved for him was occupied by a few unreserved passengers and when he asked them to vacate the seat, he was abused by them. Since the TTE was not available in that coach, he could not complain about the occupation of the seat reserved for him by the unreserved passengers, as a result of which, he was travelling all along by standing from Coimbatore to Chennai. Due to the crowdy atmosphere, he was not in a position to use the toilet. Since he was already suffering from urinary tract problem his health was affected because of the tedious journey in the train without access to the lavatory for answering the calls of nature throughout the night, which has resulted in deterioration of his health and he had undergone a surgery for the issue in his urinary tract valve. Thus, according to the complainant, the health complications suffered by him are the direct consequences of the troublesome and tedious train journey due to the clear service deficiency on the part of the Railway in their glaring failure to assign a TTE to man the reserved coach and, in such circumstances, there is an absolute legal liability rests on them to compensate him not only for the service deficiency but also for the consequential health deterioration and the expenses incurred by him for the medical treatment.
11. On the contrary, it is the argument of the Railways that the very conduct of the complainant in having kept mum throughout, in never resorting to any mode for immediate redressal of his problem by reaching out to the guard, railway police force, etc. available in the train and indirectly approaching the Consumer Commission subsequently only shows that he intends to succeed by his own self-serving allegations against the Railways.
12. But, in the view of this Commission, the argument of the Railways cannot be countenanced for more than one reason.
13. The complainant is said to be a 68 year old Senior Citizen and the reserved ticket under Ex.A1 reflects the same and also the fact that he was allotted Lower Berth No.12 in S4 Coach of the Train concerned. Therefore, with the issuance of such a reserved-confirmed ticket, the passenger is primarily assured of a comfortable journey by occupying the earmarked seat or berth which is specified in the ticket itself. Regarding the aspect as to who is responsible for seating the reserved passengers in their respective seats or berths, the answer is that it is the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE). Mere possession of a valid confirmed-reserved ticket will not entitle a passenger to continue the journey unless his/her identity is verified through the supportive document tendered to the TTE by the passengers. Complete list of the reserved passengers and their details in the form of a Chart/Booklet are provided to the TTEs concerned, whose primary responsibility is to check and verify the journey tickets as well as the proof of identity produced by the passengers in the reserved coaches and guide them to occupy their respective seats or berths. Therefore, TTE is the only responsible individual for the correct accommodation of the passengers in the reserved coaches. This Commission is informed that the TTEs, in particular those who man the Sleeper Coach, must be punctual and they are required to report for duty at least 30 minutes before the scheduled departure of the train and they are expected to be vigilant particularly during night time to ensure that no intruders, hawkers, unauthorized food vendors, etc. shall enter the coach. Further, a TTE is also required to make out a report of deficiencies in the coaches regarding the passengers' amenities and submit the same at the end of his duty to the Lobby Office concerned at the Stations where the train is about to terminate. Therefore, it is apodictic that services of TTEs shall be available throughout the train journey especially to those passengers who travel in reserved coaches with a confirmed ticket. In such circumstances, when the grievance of the passenger/complainant is that no TTE was available in his coach to seat him in the Berth allotted to him under the confirmed ticket by unseating an intruder, who not only occupied his berth but also misbehaved with him, the initial burden lies on the Railways to prove that they had provided the very basic service of seating the passengers in the reserved coaches by deputing a TTE and that the said TTE had performed his duty by doing chart and identity verification and guided the passengers to occupy their respective seats/berths. Unless substantiating the aspect that a TTE was assigned to man the Coach, who confirmed the status of the passengers and seated them in their respective places, there is no point in jumping to the contention that the passenger did not seek help through other modes by then and there approaching the Guard or the Railway Police. The grievance of the complainant is that he was not even able to move due to the crowded atmosphere in the coach; while so, no one would expect such an age-old person to wade through the crowd and search for availability of any railway personnel to hear his problem. In this case, the Railways very conveniently abstained from marking any single paper reflecting the details of the TTE deputed to the coach concerned and the reservation chart handled by him. However, from the RTI reply received by the complainant under Ex.A7, dated 08.10.2015, it is seen that, for question Nos.1 and 5 of the complainant in the Ex.A6-RTI Application viz., "furnish me the name and address of the TTE, who attended S4 coach in Train No.12515 on 26.10.2014" and "what is the reason behind the service deficiency caused in not having allotted the reserved berth-LB12 to me by the TTE in S.4 Train No.12515", the combined answer given by the Railways runs thus:-
"The Coach S-4 of T. No.12515 of 26.10.2014 WAS UNMANNED."
The above RTI reply given by none else than the Railways themselves would go to show that they blatantly failed in providing the minimum basic services by deputing a TTE to man the reserved coach despite the known fact that the Train would be over-crowded since it was a weekly-once operated train and the day of its arrival to the destination point/Chennai Central is a Monday. Everyone knows that an unmanned reserved coach would attract more and more unauthorized entrants and therefore, it is not difficult to infer the clamorous scenario that would have developed at that time and, in such circumstances, the grievance of the complainant that, in the absence of TTE, he had suffered the ordeal of a traumatic train journey by standing all along, cannot be simply brushed aside, by blindly accepting the vague explanations now offered by the Railways.
14. At the same time, this Commission is not able to see anything to directly connect the treatment taken by the complainant for the health complications with the distraught train journey for the reason that he had undertaken the train travel on 26.10.2014, whereas, the medical records only show that he took treatment for the health issues faced by him long thereafter during April, 2015 and the said time-gap completely enervates the claim of the complainant based on health complications and medical expenses. In such circumstances, a fair compensation for the mental agony and physical sufferings endured by a senior citizen like the complainant from the traumatic train journey, which was a result of the glaring lapse on the part of the Railways, should be proportionate only to the service deficiency as aforementioned and, in that perspective, to do substantial justice, it would be just and proper not only to confirm the impugned award but also to add to it also the sum of Rs.50,000/-, which was directed by the District Forum to be paid to the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
15. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit by confirming the order passed in RBT/C.C.No.29 of 2022, dated 29.07.2022, however, with an alteration that a sum of Rs.50,000/-, as directed by the District Commission, to be deposited to the credit of Consumer Legal Aid Account, shall also be combined together with the other two sums viz., Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/-; as such, the complainant entitled to a total sum of Rs.62,000/- with the same default clause as ordered by the District Commission.
R.SUBBIAH PRESIDENT Index : Yes/ No GR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/September/2023 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH] PRESIDENT