Vinod Sanghi @ V.K. Sanghi Vs. South Central Railway - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1112263
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnOct-26-2006
Case NumberF.A. No. 1908 of 2005
JudgeI. VENKATANARAYANA, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. MERLA SHREESHA, MEMBER
AppellantVinod Sanghi @ V.K. Sanghi
RespondentSouth Central Railway
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(g) - case referred: john joseph v. general manager, northern railway and another, iii (1993) cpj 321 (nc)=1993 (3) cpr 138. (relied) [para 4] comparative citations: 2007 (2) cpr 12, 2007 (3) cpj 235mrs. m. shreesha, member: 1. aggrieved by the order in c.d. no. 846 of 2004 on the file of district forum-ii, hyderabad complainant preferred this appeal. the brief facts set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a senior citizen of 68 years and travelled with his wife to guwahati from secunderabad in opposite partys super fast express on 11.1.2004. this train was a newly introduced train and takes approximately two days to reach the destination, but the said train was not provided with pantry car nor was maintained properly. the complainant found many deficiencies in maintenance of the compartment like water, light, fans and toilets which he brought to the notice of the officials. there was no book available with opposite party officials to record a complaint. therefore, the complainant recorded a complaint and handed it over to the opposite party officials who in turn endorsed but nothing happened and the complainant did not receive any explanation or letter of acknowledgement from the opposite party officials. vexed with their attitude the complainant approached the forum seeking directions to the opposite parties to grant compensation of rs. 10,000 with other costs. 2. the opposite party filed their counter affidavit along with affidavit of tte who received the complaint on that day and in all these affidavits the opposite party strongly denied the allegations and alleged that the complainant is a regular litigant and requested to dismiss the complaint. 3. based on the evidence adduced and pleadings put forward and exs. a1 to a4, the district forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay an amount of rs. 3,000 towards compensation to the complainant together with costs of rs. 1,000. 4. aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal. the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the district forum did not address itself to the issue of non-provision of pantry car in train no. 5637 and this is mandatory since this train covers a distance of 3474 kms. from secunderabad to guwahati in 50 hours. he drew our attention to the order of national commission in john joseph v.general manager, northern railway and another reported in iii (1993) cpj 321 (nc)=1993 (3) cpr 138, in which the national commission discussed the case of discrimination in differential treatment meted out to the passengers travelling by super fast train mangala express which has a total running time of 53 hours without a pantry car and directed the railways to see that a pantry car is attached to the mangala express operating between nizamuddin railway station and mangalore central within three weeks time. 5. the learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and that the ttc also filed his affidavit on their behalf in the district forum stating that the train no. 5638/5637 from secunderabad to guwahati inaugurated and the trip started from secunderabad on 11.1.2004 and that pantry car is not compulsory for each train. he further denied that the toilets and other amenities are not provided in the said train. 6. taking into consideration that the complainant did give a complaint to the ttc on 18.1.2004 but did not receive any reply and also considering the fact that the train is a super fast express from secunderabad to guwahati and involves 50 hours of journey and taking approximately 2 days to reach the destination, we are of the view that the district forum has rightly awarded compensation of rs. 3,000 and costs of rs. 1,000 in view of the deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties in not replying to his complaint and seeing that basic amenities were not provided to the complainant. keeping in view the judgment of the national commission which the complainant has brought to our notice and which has been discussed above, the railways is advised to follow the judgment of the national commission and attach the pantry car for the convenience of the passengers since the said super fast express involves 50 hours of running journey. in the result, appeal is disposed of with the aformentioned observations. appeal disposed of.
Judgment:

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member:

1. Aggrieved by the order in C.D. No. 846 of 2004 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad complainant preferred this appeal.

The brief facts set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a senior citizen of 68 years and travelled with his wife to Guwahati from Secunderabad in opposite partys Super Fast Express on 11.1.2004. This train was a newly introduced train and takes approximately two days to reach the destination, but the said train was not provided with Pantry Car nor was maintained properly. The complainant found many deficiencies in maintenance of the compartment like water, light, fans and toilets which he brought to the notice of the officials. There was no book available with opposite party officials to record a complaint. Therefore, the complainant recorded a complaint and handed it over to the opposite party officials who in turn endorsed but nothing happened and the complainant did not receive any explanation or letter of acknowledgement from the opposite party officials. Vexed with their attitude the complainant approached the Forum seeking directions to the opposite parties to grant compensation of Rs. 10,000 with other costs.

2. The opposite party filed their counter affidavit along with affidavit of TTE who received the complaint on that day and in all these affidavits the opposite party strongly denied the allegations and alleged that the complainant is a regular litigant and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3. Based on the evidence adduced and pleadings put forward and Exs. A1 to A4, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000 towards compensation to the complainant together with costs of Rs. 1,000.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum did not address itself to the issue of non-provision of Pantry Car in train No. 5637 and this is mandatory since this train covers a distance of 3474 kms. from Secunderabad to Guwahati in 50 hours. He drew our attention to the order of National Commission in John Joseph v.General Manager, Northern Railway and Another reported in III (1993) CPJ 321 (NC)=1993 (3) CPR 138, in which the National Commission discussed the case of discrimination in differential treatment meted out to the passengers travelling by Super Fast Train Mangala Express which has a total running time of 53 hours without a Pantry Car and directed the railways to see that a Pantry Car is attached to the Mangala Express operating between Nizamuddin Railway Station and Mangalore Central within three weeks time.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent/opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and that the TTC also filed his affidavit on their behalf in the District Forum stating that the train No. 5638/5637 from Secunderabad to Guwahati inaugurated and the trip started from Secunderabad on 11.1.2004 and that Pantry Car is not compulsory for each train. He further denied that the toilets and other amenities are not provided in the said train.

6. Taking into consideration that the complainant did give a complaint to the TTC on 18.1.2004 but did not receive any reply and also considering the fact that the train is a Super Fast Express from Secunderabad to Guwahati and involves 50 hours of journey and taking approximately 2 days to reach the destination, we are of the view that the District Forum has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 3,000 and costs of Rs. 1,000 in view of the deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties in not replying to his complaint and seeing that basic amenities were not provided to the complainant. Keeping in view the judgment of the National Commission which the complainant has brought to our notice and which has been discussed above, the Railways is advised to follow the judgment of the National Commission and attach the Pantry Car for the convenience of the passengers since the said Super Fast Express involves 50 hours of running journey.

In the result, appeal is disposed of with the aformentioned observations.

Appeal disposed of.