Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/109/2016

Union of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Brij Bhushan Rana - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil K. Sahore

07 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	109 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	05.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	07.04.2016

 

1. Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Station Master, New Delhi Railway Station, New Delhi
3. Station Master, Chandigarh Railway Station, Chandigarh.
4. Kartar Singh CIT, Kalka Division, Kalka Railway Station, Kalka, District Panchkula.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Brij Bhushan Rana S/o Sh. G.D. Rana R/o H. No. 5254/3, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh-160101

              ....Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh.Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for the appellants.  

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal is directed against an order dated 10.02.2016, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted a complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent), against the opposite parties (now appellants).

2.       Before the Forum, it was grievance of the respondent/complainant that he had booked tickets for him, as also for his family members, to undertake journey from Chandigarh to Mujjaffarpur and back (Chandigarh). His journey from Chandigarh to Mujjaffarpur was comfortable. However, when coming back, the complainant had to face many difficulties. He alongwith his family members, boarded Vaishali Express Train on 04.10.2014. The said train was to arrive at Delhi, on 05.10.2014 at 0630 hours. For further journey from Delhi to Chandigarh, the complainant had booked tickets in Shatabadi Express, which was to start from Delhi, at 0740 hours, on 05.10.2014. Vaishali Express got delayed and reached Delhi at 0830 hours instead of 0630 hours, on 05.10.2014. By that time, train for Chandigarh had already left. Another train-Paschim Express was going to Chandigarh. To know, whether the complainant can undertake journey upto Chandigarh, in that train, on the basis of tickets already purchased by him, he went to the enquiry cabin. He was informed that tickets with him are of chair car category, which is superior to the category of the seats, available in the Paschim Express, as such, he could travel in the said train in Two/Three Tier AC coach. When the complainant alongwith his family members went to board in the said train, he was stopped by an Official of the appellants, namely Kartar Singh, CIT, Kalka Railway Station. The complainant was asked to board sleeper coach in Paschim Express Train and for that, he was made to purchase new tickets, with fine.
3.       The respondent lodged online complaint, on portal of Indian Railways, explaining the difficulties suffered by him. He made a request for refund of Rs.1800/-, which he had paid to the appellants, as fine, and also made a request to take action against the erring Officials. However, nothing was done, which made him to file a complaint.
4.       Upon notice, the appellants/opposite parties, put in appearance and filed their written reply. It was averred that the tickets were booked by the complainant through post office at Hoshiarpur and he missed his train at Delhi, as such, the Forum had no territorial jurisdiction.  It was pleaded that in case of delay, the passenger can get his tickets revalidate, through office, to travel to the next available train, however, it was not done by the complainant. It was further stated that if a passenger travels on any train, without revalidation of tickets, he could be subject to fine, as was done in the present case. It was further stated that in view of the provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, consumer compliant cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora.
5.       In the rejoinder filed by the complainant, he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in written version of the appellants.
6.       The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7.       After hearing Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, partly accepted the complaint, and granted following relief against the appellants:-

“a]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/-at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.”

8.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties, alongwith which, an application for condonation of delay of 02 days, in filing the appeal, was also filed.
9.       We have heard Counsel for the appellants, at the preliminary stage, on application aforesaid, as also in the main appeal, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
10.       At the time of arguments, by making reference to Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, it was stated that jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain the complaint was barred. The said contention, after noting down the above provisions, was rightly rejected by the Forum, by observing as under:-

“7. The objection of the OPs that the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred in view of Railway Tribunal Act is not tenable as the matter in the case is not covered under Section 13 and 15 of the Railway Tribunal Act the specific provisions referred by the OPs which the OPs claimed to have barring effect.  The present case is not related with refund of any tickets which the complainant originally booked but pertains to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice resorted at the end of the OPs, which caused the complainant to pay double the amount of the actual ticket. It is settled principle of law that the remedy under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an alternative and additional remedy and thus the complainant has full right to approach Consumer Forum for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice resorted to by the OPs.”

11.       Otherwise also, as is apparent from the order impugned, compensation has been granted for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. There is no order to refund the amount paid by the respondent, to purchase the said tickets and fine. Some amount has been granted towards litigation expenses. As is evident from the provisions of 1986 Act, Section 3 provides an additional remedy to a consumer, to claim benefits of that Act, and it is an additional remedy available to the consumers and same will not be in derogation of the provisions of any other law. The Hon'ble Supreme of India, under somewhat similar circumstances, while handling issues with regard to 1986 Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [amended by The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015] in National Seeds Corporation Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy  &  anr. (2012) 2 SCC 506, as also in Rosedale Developers Private Limited Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya and others, (Civil Appeal No.20923 of 2013),  held that the plain language of Section 3 of 1986 Act, makes it clear that the remedy available in that Act, is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. In view of this, the argument raised by Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, stands rejected.
12.       It was further argued by Counsel for the appellants that for want of territorial jurisdiction, the complaint should have been dismissed by the Forum. We are not in agreement with the argument raised. It is not in dispute that the tickets were purchased through post office, at Hoshiarpur. However, the journey was to start and end at Chandigarh. In view of above, definitely a cause of action has arisen to the complainant, to file this complaint at Chandigarh and as such, the said plea taken by the appellants was rightly rejected by the Forum
13.       The Forum has rightly held that the appellants were deficient in providing service to the respondent and the said inaction has resulted into causing mental agony and physical harassment to him, and his family members. In that regard, it was rightly observed by the Forum, as under:-

“9. It is not denying the fact that the complainant purchased 5 tickets (four adult and one child) on 5.8.2014 for traveling from Chandigarh to Mujjaffarpur via New Delhi on 28.9.2014 and  return from Mujjaffarpur to Chandigarh via New Delhi for 4.10.2014/ 5.10.2014. According to the complainant while traveling from Chandigarh to Mujjaffarpur the journey was smooth but they had to face bad experience while coming from Mujjaffarpur to Chandigarh. On 4.10.2014  while back to his destination the complainant and his family members boarded the train from Mujjaffarpur to New Delhi and its connected train from New Delhi was to depart at 7.40 hours on 5.10.2014 but unfortunately earlier train i.e.  Vaishali Express in which they were traveling arrived late  by two hours at New Delhi owing  to this reason the connected  train i.e. Shatabdi express was missed by the complainant. From the enquiry counter at new delhi station the complainant came to know that the next train Paschim express is scheduled to leave at 1040 hours on the same day and he was told by the enquiry counter that they can travel on the same with the same ticket and they accordingly boarded in the said train. It is the main allegation of the complainant that he was harassed by Opposite Party No.4 during the journey from New Delhi to Chandigarh.  Opposite Party No.4 alleged to have demanded bribe of Rs.1000/- through a 4th class employee and refusal of the same costed him Rs.2000/- which includes the amount of ticket alongwith penalty. The complainant alleged that  the complaint in this regard was also made to the officials of the OP and the inquiry conducted thereon was not finalized due to absence of the employee through whom Opposite Party No.4 approached the complainant to pay bribe of Rs.1000/-. The complainant also  objected to the genuineness of the inquiry held by the OPs( 1 to 3). ”

14.       Contention of the appellants that in case of delay, it was incumbent upon the respondent to get the tickets revalidated for further journey is not appreciable. There is nothing on record to show that in the tickets, it was so mentioned. Affidavit of the person, who was on duty and to whom it is attributable that he has so said, has not been placed on record. It was highhandedness, on the part of the Officials of the appellants, to make the complainant to repurchase the tickets and further imposed fine upon him. Indian Railways is a premier service of the Country. It is supposed to be very efficient. People have expectations that the trains will reach in time. In the present case, at the time of arguments, it has been stated by Counsel for the appellants that the train had delayed on account of fog on the tracks. However, nothing of that sort, has been produced on record, to support such a version. Occurrence has taken place, in the month of October. Fog is excepted only in difficult weather conditions, for which there is no evidence, on record. The stand taken by the appellants, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, is rejected.     
15.       No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the appellants.
16.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
17.       In view of the order passed above, application filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 02 days, in filing the appeal, is dismissed, having been rendered infructuous.
18.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
19.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

07.04.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

Rg