Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway vs P J Kurian

THE complainant reserved three seats in Guruvayur Chennai Express for travelling on 28.01.2012. The booking was confirmed in compartment D -3. According to the complainant when he alongwith his friends reached the railway station, the door of D -3 compartment was found locked from inside. The complainant sought help of Railway Police Protection Force, but no one helped him and his friends. As a result, they could not board the train and could not attend the business meeting at Madurai. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking refund of fare paid by them as well as the compensation.

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioners on the ground that the halting time of the train being only three minutes at Haripad railway station, the complainant must have reached the concerned railway station very late.

BEFORE the District Forum, the complainant was examined as PW -1, whereas no evidence was produced by the petitioners. Vide its order dated 22.06.2012, the District Forum directed the petitioners to refund an amount of Rs. 291/ -, being the ticket charge and also to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - and costs of Rs. 2,000/ - to him. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.02.2014 with a cost of Rs. 5,000/ -, the petitioners are before us by way of this revision petition.

IT is not in dispute that the complainant had booked three tickets for travel in Guruvayur Chennai Express on 28.01.2012. It is also not in dispute that the reservation granted to the complainant was in compartment D -3. The halt at Haripad railway station admittedly was only for three minutes. The only disputed question of fact is as to whether the door of the aforesaid compartment D -3 was open when the train was at Haripad railway station for three minutes or not. The complainant, as noted earlier, stated on oath that the door of the aforesaid compartment was found locked and even the officials of Railway Police Protection Force were not able to help him. The petitioners did not produce any evidence at all, to prove that in fact the door of the compartment D -3 was open at the time the train halted at Haripad railway station. Therefore the deposition of the complainant in this regard remained virtually unrebutted. In our opinion, it was the duty of the petitioners to ensure that the door of the compartment D -3 on the platform side remained open during the time the train halted at Haripad railway station. This was more so when the halt at the aforesaid station was only for three minutes. The petitioners were clearly negligent in rendering service to the complainant by not ensuring that the door of the compartment D -3 remained open during the time the train remained at Haripad station.

IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complainant must have reached late and that is why he was unable to board the train at Haripad railway station. We, however, see no reason to disbelieve the complainant who lodged a report in this regard with the petitioners soon after the train had left Haripad railway station. The complaints A2 and A3 were made by him with Station Master of Haripad railway station. The deposition of the complainant coupled with the aforesaid complaint made soon after the train had left the railway station, is sufficient to prove that in fact the complainant was unable to board the train on account of the door having been locked/bolted from inside the compartment. We, therefore, cannot accept the otherwise far -fetched contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the fora below. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed.