ORAL

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by Union of India against the order dated 09.07.2015 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short “the State Commission”) whereby the Appeal No.306 of 2012 filed by the Complainants against the order dated 14.02.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mehsana (for short “the District Forum”) was allowed and following directions were issued:

(2)        An order is hereby passed against the respondent that it should pay to the appellants an amount of Rs.5,399 + Rs.3,400  +Rs.1,200 = Rs.9,999/- incurred by the appellants for tickets and an amount of Rs.5,000/- for mental shock and harassment and an amount of Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the application within             30 days from the date of passing this order.  The amount of Rs.9,999/- incurred for ticket expenses be paid with 9% interest from the date of filing the suit till realization.”

-2-

2.       Notice of the Revision Petition was served upon the Respondents but none of them attended the proceedings despite adjourning the cases on number of occasions. 

3.       Arguments on behalf of Petitioner are heard.  File perused.

4.       Complaint of the Complainants/Respondents was dismissed by the District Forum.  Against the order of dismissal, Respondents filed the Appeal which was decided in their favour by the State Commission.  Aggrieved by the said order, present Revision Petition has been filed.

5.       It is apparent that the Petitioner had not attended the proceedings before the District Forum.  However, they appeared and contested before the State Commission.

6.       The admitted brief facts of the case are that on 24.05.2009 Respondents were going from Mehsana to Jammu and purchased railway tickets worth Rs.5,399/- for going from Mehsana to Jammu Tavi.   They had boarded the train no.9223 on 24.05.2009 and when the train reached Phirozpur, the Petitioner suddenly cancelled further journey of the train in which the Respondents were travelling.  Due to this reason, Respondents had to cancel their journey of going to Jammu Tavi and had to return to Mehsana and for that they had to purchas the tickets from Phirozpur to Mehsana for Rs.3,400/-.  Due to cancellation of their tickets, they had suffered a loss of Rs.1,200/-.  Their contention was that they had suffered a loss of Rs.9,900/- on account of this act of the Petitioner.  Besides claiming sum of Rs.9,999/- towards cost of the

-3-

tickets, Respondents claimed Rs.30,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation.  It is apparent that no defence had been put by the Petitioner before the District Forum.  Even before the State Commission, no cogent reasons for cancellation of the train had been given by the Petitioner.  It is argued that admittedly, since the Respondents have themselves admitted that on cancellation of tickets, money was refunded and they had only suffered loss of Rs.1200/-, grant of the amount by the impugned order is unjustified.  It is submitted that railways is not liable to refund the ticket amount uptill Phirozpur since the Respondents had travelled from Mehsana to Phirozpur on that tickets and the railways had already refunded the balance money for unutilised tickets.  It is also argued that as per rules, the refunds were made and the entire refund was not to be made because it is not covered under the rules and regulations.

7.       I have heard the arguments and given thoughtful consideration.

8.       Admittedly, due to sudden cancellation of the train in which the Respondents were travelling, they had to change their entire programme.  Not only that, they could not reach Jammu, they had to cancel these tickets.  Therefore, the argument that the Petitioner is liable only for the refund towards the amount for travel for which the ticket is not utilised due to cancellation is not valid.  They had to cancel the tickets of Rs.5399/- from Jammu and also they had by their uncontradicted testimony proved the loss which they had suffered. 

-4-

Under Section 21(b) of the Act, this Commission has limited jurisdiction.  The court has to see whether there is any jurisdictional error or perversity in the order or that any injustice has been caused to the Petitioner.  In the present case, the Respondents have proved their case by leading uncontradicted testimonies.  I found no illegality or irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order which has been passed by the State Commission after re-appreciating and re-perusing the uncontradicted testimonies of the Respondents which were on record.  The present Revision Petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.