Delhi

StateCommission

A/403/2017

ROHIT RAI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.RANI

04 Sep 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :04.09.2017

Date of Decision :06.09.2017

FIRST APPEAL NO.403/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri Rohit Rai,

A-138, Yojana Vihar,

Delhi-110092.                                                                                               ……Appellant

                                                                        Versus

Chairman Railway Board,

Room No.236,

Rail Bhawan, Raisina Marg,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                                     …...Respondent

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

 

Present:        Shri  P.K. Rai, counsel for the Appellant.

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the orders dated 04.07.2017, passed by the District Forum (East) in CC no.205/17, in the matter of Rohit Rai Vs. Chairman, Railway Board, dismissing the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, Shri Rohit Rai, resident of Delhi, for short appellant, has filed an appeal before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Chairman, Railway Board praying for  direction, inter alia, to set aside the order impugned herein.

          Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of appeal are these.

          The complainant/ appellant had purchased two railway tickets from Kerala for undertaking the journey from Jam Nagar to New Delhi on 02.05.2017  by 2A by the train number 12477 (JAM SVDK Express). The fact that he had purchased tickets from Kerala is mentioned nowhere, either in the complaint or in the appeal but this was one of the submission of  the ld. Counsel. The tickets so purchased were numbered as 39890560 and 39890561 with PNR No: 875-8372386 and 854-5658844 and the cost of ticket was Rs.5200/-. Tickets were wait listed. Those tickets could not be confirmed. The complainant reached the Jamnagar Railway Station before the departure  time of the train and since tickets were  not confirmed, he sought the refund of the amount spent for purchase of the ticket. The authorities however had refused to refund the amount to the complainant on the ground that he had not approached them on time. However the authorities’ were not able to highlight the rules on the subject.

          The complainant has alleged that this act on the part of the authorities amounts to unfair trade practice. Owing to this a complaint was filed before the Distt. Fora praying for the relief as under:-

(A)    The complainant prays for refund of Rs.5,200/- (Rupees five thousand two hundred only). This amount was paid towards the purchase of two unconfirmed railway tickets from railway ticket counter with the opposite party. This amount may kindly be refunded along with interest at current market rate.

(B)    The complainant further prays for payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) by the opposite party to the complainant for rendering deficient service, causing harassment to the complainant which brought great mental and emotional agony.  The Hon’ble District Consumer Forum may  be pleased to allow to application with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) for filing this case of litigation in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party for doing clandestine business. The opposite party is guilty of deficient service.

          The Distt.  Fora however dismissed the complaint vide order dated 04.07.2017, impugned herein, on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant has assailed the orders of the Distt. Fora relying on the fact that Chairman, Railway Board, impleaded as OP, is stationed at New Delhi and there exists a reservation counter at  Karkardooma, Delhi.

          The appellant  has filed the appeal on the ground that the impugned order is based upon surmises and conjecture. Distt. Fora has failed to consider  and appreciate the arguments regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Commission. Finally the facts of the case have not been properly appreciated.

          The appeal so filed was listed before us for admission hearing on 04.09.2017 when the ld. Counsel for the appellant appeared and made his submissions and advanced his arguments. We have perused the records of the case.

          In the first instance we have perused the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as under:

Section 11 jurisdiction of the District Forum

(1)     ………………….

(2)     A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are  more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain, or

(b)     …………………., or

          (c )    the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

          On  a close reading of the statute it is manifestly clear that the cause of action determines and decides the territorial jurisdiction. In the given case, the cause of action in the matter arose in Kerala from where the tickets are stated to have been purchased or at Jamnagar where the complainant, on tickets not having been confirmed, sought the refund. Mere fact that the Chairman, Railway Board sit here at New Delhi does not vest this Commission with the terrtioriral jurisdiction.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Soni Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company  IV(2009) CPJ 40 (SC) has held

“The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence  under the  amended Section 17 (2), the complaint could have been filed at Chandigarh.  We regret we cannot agree with the ld. Counsel for the appellant. In our opinion an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17 (2)(b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd  consequences. If the contention of the ld. Counsel is accepted,  it will  mean that even if a cause of action has arisen at Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim / petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gujrat or anywhere  in India where branch office of the company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. In our opinion therefore Branch office would mean the office where the cause of action arose………………..

          The M.P. State Commission in he matter of Northern Madhya Railway & Ors Vs. Brij Kishore Sharma Vs. – III (2011) CPJ 49 (MP) – has held

“Tickets purchased at Gwalior but complaint filed at Bhind is not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction”.

The cause of action in the given case certainly did not arise in Delhi enabling the Distt. Fora to hear and dispose of the complaint., Having regard to this we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Distt. Fora and we uphold it.

          There is another aspect to look into the case. Claim here is for refund and for the compensation for the harassment caused to the complainant.

          The Rajasthan State Commission in the matter of Jai Narain Vs. North Western Railways – IV (2009) CPJ 137 (Raj) has held as order

“Refund of  fauves not  within the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. Jurisdiction for the purpose lies with the Railway claims Tribunal”

          On this account also the complaint before the Consumer Fora is not maintainable.

          We  uphold the order passed by the Distt. Fora and dismiss the appeal.

          Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Rules 1987 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

          File be consigned to Record Room.     

 

          (ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                            MEMBER (JUDICIAL)