Omission of passenger names in the reservation chart leading to ejection from the train constitutes deficiency in service and justifies compensation for mental agony and anguish.

Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th day of November, 1996 in O.P. No. 502/95 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North).

2. The appellant is the complainant while the respondents are the opposite parties.

3. The succinct facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

4. The complainant reserved 3 tickets at second opposite party ticket counter at Shimoga Railway Station on 2.10.1995 at 10.30 a.m. for travelling from Shimoga to Bangalore in Train No. 284A and from Bangalore to Madras in Train No. 6008 (Bangalore-Madras Mail). The reservation of tickets was made by the complainant for himself, for his wife Hamsaveni and for his mother-in-law, Roopavathi. The mother-in-law was accompanying them since they brought one month old baby along with them.

5. The tickets were for the journey on 5.10.1995. He paid the necessary and requisite charges for travelling from Shimoga to Madras quantified in a sum of Rs. 306/- and he paid the berths charges of Rs. 45/- from Shimoga to Bangalore in the Trian No. 284 A in Coach No. S4, all totalling to Rs. 351/-. Necessary and requisite berths were allotted in S4 Coach in the said Train.

6. When he along with his family members went to Shimoga Railway Station on 5-10.1995 and they as a matter of fact occupied the berths in S4 Coach. They were, however, ejected out of the train by the Travelling Ticket Examiner saying that those berths were allotted to some other passengers. Consequently, the complainant and his family members were to necessarily wait in the platform for unduly long for catching the other train. This act on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant would say, would amount to deficiency in service.

7. Alleging the factors as above, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

8. The opposite parties in pith and substance would contend that though the complainant and his family members were issued tickets along with berths in the train in question, yet somehow or other, due to inadvertence on the part of the Booking Clerk, their names were omitted in the chart and consequently the Travelling Ticket Examiner had to eject them out and allot the seats to other persons who were also holding the tickets for occupying the berths allotted to the complainant and his family members. What they would further contend is that the complainant and his family members were offered alternate accommodation and they refused to accept the alternate accommodation offered and such being the case it cannot at all be stated that there was any deficiency in service on their part. The complaint as such is liable to be dismissed.

9. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, however, recorded a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs. 350/-.

10. Aggrieved by the order as above, the appellant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice namely learned Counsel Mr. G.S. Sivakumar.

11. On service of process, the respondents/ opposite parties also entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsel Mr. V.S.R. Hanu Babu Koka.

12. When the matter came up for hearing before us today, both learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant as well as the respondents/opposite parties were called absent and no representation was made on their behalf. The fact that both learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents were absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits, of course, on perusal of the materials places on record and that is exactly what we have done in this case.

13. Even, at the outset we may point out that the Forum below did not at all sift, scan and analyse the materials placed on r