DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………………………
Presents:-
1.Sri P.Samantara,President.
2.Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
3. Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 29th day of June 2016.
C.C.No.17 of 2014.
Rita Gupta wife of Durga Prasad Gupta , Resident of Ward No.4, Kantabanji,
P.O/P.S- Kantabanji, Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Booking kClerk,Kantab anji Railway Station,
At/P.O/P.S- Kantabanji, Dist- Bolangir.
2.Station Master, Kantabanji Railway Station,
At/P.O/P.S- Kantabanji, Dist- Bolangir.
3.Divisional Manager, East Cost Railway, Sambalpur Division.
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Sambalpur.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- Sri B.C.Pradhan & Associates.
Adv. for the Opp.Parties.- Sri O.P.Hota.
Date of filing of the case – 25.03.2014
Date of order - 29.06.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the C.P.Act filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties.
2. Succinctly put, the complainant purchased tickets in advance for journey of Titilagarh to Hatia. The purchased date was 20.04.2013 and date of journey on 07.05.2013 and 08.05.2013. The complainant also submitted, the booked ticket No.12946851 was meant from Titilagarh to Hatia being break up with train NO.18452 named Tapaswini Express from Rourkela to Hatia vide ticket No.12946852 on 3 tire AC in subscription against Rs 1770/-.
3. It is also averred on dt.07.05.2013 the complainant availed the coach B1,3 tire AC but while boarding in train No.18452, the TTE denied journey in express that the booked tickets not meant to have the journey in 3 tire AC rather in sleeper coach.
4. Thus the case has been lodged in allegation that although price has been paid under the subsist requisition sleep but no ticket as required by the complainant has been tendered or rendered. The commission of negligence on the part of the O.P is deficiency of service although booked in advance consideration.
5. Hence prayed the O.Ps may kindly be directed to refund the booking amount along with deemed reliefs to the complainant. Relied on ticket photo copies, complaint copy and paper cuts along with affidavit.
6. Pursuance to forum’s notice, the O.P made his submission in admission that complainant petition are partly true. The reservation was granted as pew requisition tendered for the reservation . The out word journey was in AC-3 tier in train No- 18108 from Titilagarh to Rourkela and on word Journey from Rourkela to Hatia in sleeper class of train No- 18452. And contending it is false to say that the OP-1 booked ticked in AC-3 tier both outward as well as onward journey as requisition slip says so. The complaint as filed is a not maintainable within the realm of Railway claim Tribunal Act 1987 under section 13(b) read with section 15 of the Act.
7. Further contended, in para-4 of the complaint petition, it is admitted, the O.P.1 has issued confirmed tickets and it clearly shows the ticket for onward journey was booked in sleeper class in train No.18452 (Tapaswini Express) from Rourkela to Hatia and which is as per the requisition submitted. So the Railway authorities have not committed any wrong. The petition is loaded with false, fabricated and imaginary facts and information. In view of the aforesaid facts and laws, the complaint is not sustainable in the eyes of law and must be dismissed with cost. Relied on requisition sleep and calculation of fare sheets.
8. Heard the learned submissions and perused the record.
9. The perusal of the record reveals the sole question of requisition made on the ticket issued. On the above made issue, the core question found to be the requisition form tendered at the booking counter. Both parties vehemently made submission on the production original requisition slip. On the first instance, we perused the document that applied by Durga Prasad Gupta on dt.20.04.2013.The petitioner heavily contended the veracity of the document relied with such as the requisition form.
10. The forum also directed to submit the entire guidelines that covers the retainment period of the requisition slip at O.P.1 end it is kept. In addition, it is sought, the requisition slip being a preserved document as urged also lacks the mandatory requisite, the applicant’s signature and in absence same is not entitled to be taken into booking. Such discrepancies and irregularities tends that authority how made an attempt to establish a wrong and disgraceful fact in a willful manufactured manner and those purposefully manufactured document relied lacks the believable potency such facts, twisted to garner legal support as far as possible.
11. Having going through all the submissions, fare calculation sheet and affirmation of Runku Babji, it is made believable the tickets booked on 20.04.2013 and journey to take on dt.07.05.2013 but no complaint or cancellation slip has been produced in either end. Again the booking clerk admitted same as mistake against such irregularity to step has been taken. Further observed, the complaint made in hindi version, primarily lacks the date of complaint in left hand corner so also no due objection either also has been raised in making a plea.
12. We also further found and contended by the O.P. that the AC-3 tier in combo train No.18108 and Train No.18452 would have costs Rs 1,888/- for 2 adults and one child, but the paid amount is Rs 1,888-Rs 1,770/- = Rs 110/- which is short of tentative price calculation. And we could not come to believe that the complaint having paid Rs 1,770/- is also quiet reluctant to pay or not able to pay the differential price in booking of the Ac-3 tier from Titilagarh to Hatia via Rourkela. so it is clear mischief of the booking clerk, who has made affirmation without court’s intention in production of evidence through affidavit.
13. It is a matter of surprise the complainant booked the ticket in advance, on dt.20.04.2013 and the journey was effected on 7/8-05-2013 .The ticket bearing PNR No. 641-9243312,train No.18108 was issued for 3A consecutively B1-Lower berth and middle berth and PNR No.611-9243222 for Sleeper coach-S4 which in the knowledge of the complainant and defects, irregularity and discrepancies on the tickets if persists can be modified, corrected, altered and freshly issued but no record available that steps have been taken or denied and the petitioner awaited till made a rejection by the Inspector during journey from Rourkela, which appeared deliberate, intentional and preposterous along with maliciously advanced. So we can’t subscribe that the fact is truly omitted but not accidental. Hence the in absence of genuienity in the fact, the veracity of fact is at stake. Thus everything advanced on frivolous note and not iota of truth that the omission is mistake and no substantive that such happening occurred without knowledge and the tickets clearly specified the AC and Sleeper provision. We find no deficiency committed any more.
14. Further the contention made the forum lack jurisdiction to adjudicate, on the above context, we made rely with a decision- State of Karnataka –Versus- V ishwa Bharati House Building Society”. Held- “the remedies provided under there are not in derogation of those provided under other laws. It has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in spite of the fact that other forums/courts, would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this lis”. So this court did not derive jurisdiction apart from statute rather the principle well permits to drive within the statute. Thus maintainable.
In view of the above made discussions, we find no truth subsists on either side and the complainant’s case pale into insignificance, the case lacks substantiation to gather merit thus thereby the case is dismissed.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016.
(S.RATH) (G.K.RATH) (P.SAMANTARA)
MEMBER MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
