DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER SOUTHERN RLY Vs. P MURALIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party in O. P.457/97 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur is the appellant. The complainant's grievance was that he himself along with his wife had travelled from Korba to Tellichery in the Bilaspur Cochin Express on 1.9.1997 on reserving sleeper berth Nos.28 and 29 they had a total of eight items weighing 140 kgs. since the luggage was in excess he payed Rs.255/-. But on 3.9.1997 when the train reached Palghat Railway Station and he himself along with his wife alighted for catching Mangalore Link Express and opposite party imposed a fine of Rs.1,450/- after checking the luggage on the allegation that the luggage was in excess; he also alleged that he himself and his wife were humiliated in the public, therefore, he wanted a compensation of Rs.2,000/- along with a direction to refund Rs.1,450/- and also Rs.150/- as the headload workers' charge. The opposite party contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and also contended that the case of the complainant that the lady who accompanied him was his wife is not true. Therefore, they maintained that their decision to impose fine is justifiable. They wanted dismissal of the complaint. Before the District Forum the complainant gave evidence as P. W.1 and produced Exbts. A1 to A5. The District Forum mentions that when the case was posted for evidence of the opposite party there was no representation, hence the District Forum proceeded ex-parte. The District Forum raised as many as four points for determination and in the context of the contention of the opposite parties the District Forum analysed the evidence and ultimately found that the complainant is eligible for direction to refund the fine collected along with Rs.150/- which the complainant had to pay to the portar. Opposite parties were also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- along with costs of Rs.250/-. It is the said direction that is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant sought to maintain that by virtue of Sec.15 of the Railways Act of 1989, the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the claim fell within Sec.13 of the said Act. This argument cannot be accepted in the context of Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, particularly when the claim of the complainant did not confine to the return of the fine but was for compensation also for the deficiency in service. Sec.13 does not provide for award of compensation for deficiency in service which only the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can award. The relief clearly was for compensation for deficiency in service as well as for return of the fine along with the amount paid to the portar. When the complaint contains reliefs which did not fall under Sec.13 even if one part of the relief would attract Sec.13, it cannot be held that the Consumer Fora will not get jurisdiction because of Sec.15 of the Railways Act. The stand taken by the learned Counsel as to the jurisdiction of the District Forum cannot thus be supported.2. As regards deficiency of service the fact that complainant travelled from Korba after reserving Berth Nos.28 and 29 in the sleeper coach is not in dispute. Their destination was Thalassery and on the way they had to break journey at Palakkad so as to catch the Palakkad-Mangalore Link Express to reach Thalassery. It is not a case where the lady was not with the complainant; the case of the complainant has to be judged in the context of the fact that they had a reservation for two berths, Berth Nos.28 and 29; and if the two persons had travelled after due reservation, the payment of Rs.255/- towards the excess luggage should satisfy the claim of the Railways. P. W.1 has sworn to his case, he said the lady who accompanied him was his wife, the attending circumstance corroborated his evidence. On the side of the opposite party none entered the box to swear to the contrary. Adding to that themselves had signified their willingness to return the fine that too after enquiry. Having regard to the said features none of the findings of the District Forum can be questioned at the hands of the appellant. Appeal fails, dismissed.