THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITIZENS PROTECTION FORUM Vs. STATION MASTER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by CDRF. Thiruvananthapuram in OP 95/04. The complaint in the said original petition was filed by the appellant as complainant against the respondents/opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/Railway in providing a suitable compartment for the complainants journey from Thiruvananthapuram to Agra on 13.9.2003. It is the case of the complainant that he was a passenger in the train No. 2625, Kerala Express in bogey No. S2 from Thiruvananthapuram to Agra. He was on a pilgrimage to Himalaya via Agra under the leadership of Sri Gopinathan Nair, Treasurer, Abedha Asramam, Eastfort, Thiruvananthapuram. It is alleged that the opposite party/Railway miserably failed in providing a suitable bogey for the journey from Trivandrum Central Railway Station to Agra. The opposite parties entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that there was no such leakage to the bogey on the night of 13.9.2003. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(2.) BEFORE the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and the witness on his side was examined as PW2. Exts P1 to P3 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. DW1, the person in charge of maintenance and service was examind on the side of the opposite parties. No document was produced and marked from the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below dismissed the complaint by finding that the complainant failed to establish his case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant in OP 95/04.

(3.) WE heard both sides. The appellant/complainant who appeared in person submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the appeal. He relied on his own oral testimony and that of the oral version of PW2, the co -passenger. The complainant argued for the position that the oral evidence available on record and also the facts and circumstances of the case are sufficient enough to accept the case of deficiency of service. The appellant has also pointed out the answer given by DW1 in cross -examination and submitted that DW1 was at Nagarkovil on the date of the alleged incident. Thus, the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow the complaint in OP 95/04. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He much relied on the testimony of DW1 submitted that there is no acceptable evidence available on record other than the interested testimonies of PW1 and 2 to substantiate the case pleaded by the complainant. Thus, the respondents requested for dismissal of the present appeal.