Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/67/2017

Naba kishore Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Commercial Manager (Refund), East-Coast Railway and Others - Opp.Party(s)

Biranchi Narayan Samal& Associates

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL

C.C.Case No.67 of 2017

Naba kishore Sahu, aged about 63 years

S/o Late JayadevSahu, House No. L-73, Housing Board Colony,

Bajichouk, P.S: Town, PO/Dist: Dhenkanal             ….......Complainant

                                                                Versus

1) Chief Commercial Manager (Refund),

     East-Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, Ground Floor,

     ECO R. Sadan,  Samant Vihar Chandrasekharpur,

     Bhubaneswar-751017

2) Station Manager, E.Co. Railway, Dhenkanal,

     At/Po/Dist: Dhenkanal                                      ….........Opp. Parties

Present:  Miss BijayalaxmiSatapathy, Member

                  Sri Purna Chanda Mishra, Member

Counsel for the complainant:-Biranchi Narayan Samal& Associates

                 For the Opp. Parties: Bikram Prakash Jena & Associates

Date of hearing argument: 7.11.2017

Date of order 13.11.2017

JUDGMENT

Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member

The complainant has filed a petition U/s 12 of the C.P.Act against the O.Ps alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part for not refunding his cancelled ticket price in time inspite of repeated approaches.

                1) Brief facts leading to the case is that the petitioner purchased two tickets for journey from Bhubaneswar to New Delhi on 23.12.16 by Rajadhani Express vide ticket no. 97453019 and PNR No.6359146118 and paid a sum of Rs. 7,385/- towards fare and another return journey ticket for 31.12.2016 from New Delhi to Bhubaneswar vide ticket No.97453020 and PNR No.2553704080 from New Delhi to Bhubaneswar for a consideration of Rs. 7,430/-.  Both the ticket were booked from Dhenkanal  Railway Station ticket counter.  Because of certain difficulties he cancelled both the ticket on 13.12.2016 and surrendered the ticket to Station Master, Dhenkanal and in acknowledgement  thereof the Station Master, Dhenkanal issued ticket deposit receipt (herein after called TDR in short) for both the tickets vide TDR No.065401 and 065402.  On being advised by the O.P.no.2 the petitioner also submitted his Bank account number, name of the Branch and IFC Code of the Bank.  As per instruction mentioned in point -1 of the TDR, the petitioner made an application to the O.P.No.1 for refund of his ticket on 13.2.2017.  The O.P.No.1 received the application in his office on 15.2.2017 vide office diary No.1176.  After submitting the application as there was inordinate delay and the matter was not settled, ultimately the petitioner issued a notice to the O.P.No.1 on 24.4.2017.  After issue of notice he received two letters wherein the O.P.No.1 intimated him regarding rejection of the claim for refund of fare on the ground that the refund was not claimed within 10 days from the date of journey.  As they rejected the claim the petitioner filed this case for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint petition estimating the cost of harassment valuing his claim to be Rs. 50,000/-.

                2) That after receipt of notice the O.Ps appeared through their Advocate and filed written statement.  In their written statement the O.Ps challenged the maintainability of the complaint petition in view of the Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 read with section 124 (A) of the Railway Act.  Thy have also raised bar of jurisdiction U/s 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.  It is submitted by the O.Ps that as per  norms and rules of  Railway Administration  if any refund exceeds Rs. 5,000/- or more in that event the ticket purchaser will be granted with a TDR which shall be submitted to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refund) within the stipulated period i.e. 10 days from the date of commencement of the journey.  As the O.P.No.1 while issuing the TDR form did not correct the time limit from 90 days to 10 days in the TDR the O.P.No.2 after receiving the appeal of the petitioner dated 24.4.17 a sum of Rs. 13,675/- vide cheque No. 948649 dated 16.6.2017 was issued to the complainant which was credited on the same day to the account of the petitioner. So in view of the facts they claim for dismissal of the complaint petition with cost.

3)            The petitioner in support of his case has filed the TDR No.65401 Dt. 13.12.2016, TDR No.065462 dated 13.12.2016, track consignment report of Postal register letter dated 13.2.107, copy of demand notice issued by the petitioner on 24.4.17, original postal receipt No. CR0854460231IN, letter of O.P.No.1  dated 19.4.17(205) addressed to the petitioner, letter dated 19.4.17 vide No.206 of O.P.No.1.  On the other hand  the O.Ps have filed copy of  Circular No.64 of 2015 dated 5.11.2015 issued by the Direct Passenger marketing Railway Board, New Deli, copy of letter dated 19.4.2017 in receipt of refund of fair in train No. 22823 and No.22824 and copy of the notice dated 24.4.2017 issued by the petitioner and a copy of cheque  issued to the petitioner by the O.P.No.1. 

4)            That the prime question which needs to be decided first as to whether the case is maintainable before this Forum in view of section 13 and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987?

The present case has been filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps for making inordinate delay to refund the cancelled train fair to him.  There is no provision in the Railway Act or in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act to deal with the allegation arising out of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  In this context we relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Nation Commission reported in 2013 (4) CPJ 402 between Smt Nirmala Devi Chopra Vrs Union of India & Others wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has clearly ruled  that in the absence of any provision in Railways Claim Tribunal Act to deal with allegations arising out of deficiency in service there is no bar on the part of the Consumer Forums to go into the allegation of deficiency of service. The case in hand relates to allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  In view of the decision of the National Commission the objection raised by the O.Ps regarding maintainability of the complaint petition in view of the provisions Under Section 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence rejected.

5)            Next question relating to this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps or not? It is seen from the copy of the TDR issued against both the tickets that the application for refund of cancelled return fair is to be lodged within 90 days from the date of journey.  In the   instant case the O.P has admitted that the O.P.No.2  has not corrected point 1 in TDR from 90 days to 10 days at the time of handing it over to the applicant.  Since the petitioner made the application as per the instruction in Sl. No.1 with the stipulated period of 90 days of the receipt the O.Ps are definitely at fault for rejecting the application of the complainant for refund.  The O.P.No.1 while rejecting the application must have seen that  a period of 90 days has been mentioned in Sl. No.1 of the receipt.  Knowing fully well that the time for application mentioned as 90 days in the TDR given to the petitioner there was no reason on his part to reject it and again to allow it after receipt of notice from this forum.  If at all there was any error on the part of the O.P.No.2 he should have allowed the claim and could have punished the O.P.No.2 for his fault.  In the instant case the O.P.No.1 has allowed the petitioner to suffer who is senior citizen by  protecting his sub-ordinate staff who has committed the mistake as admitted in their written version.  Since the petitioner has acted as per the guide lines  mentioned in the TDR there was no cause of action on the part of the O.Ps to reject the application for refund and thereby  have committed deficiency in service and is liable to compensate the petitioner, hence the order.

                                                                               

ORDER

                The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the O.Ps.  They are jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service to the petitioner. The O.Ps are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for causing deficiency in service and harassment to a senior citizen and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the litigation.  The order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of order.

                Pronounced in the forum on this 13^th day of Oct. 2017.

 

      (Miss Bijayalaxmisatapathy)                              (Purna Chandra Mishra)

                          Member                                                         Member