This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      13-09-11 in the presence of Sri M.Sravan Kumar, advocate for complainant, Sri Ch.Venkata Ramaiah, advocate for OP1 and in the presence of OP2, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER: 

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the complaint.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

                The complainant purchased a ticket on 22-02-11 to travel from Tenali to Guduru with the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs.88.74+Rs.10(agent charges) . The 2^nd opposite party on 23-02-11 confirmed the reservation in Janashatabdi Express (train No.12078) and gave ticket under PNR No.1249541620.  In the ticket departure time is mentioned as 15.04 hours with an indication of star stating that “departure time printed on the ERS is liable to change.New time table from 01-07-10”.  The complainant purchased railway time table to verify the trains scheduled timing.  In page No.65 of the time table, the time of the above train was mentioned as 16.00 hours/04.00pm.  Following the time table the petitioner on 23.02.11 reached Tenali railway station at 15.30hours/3.30pm to catch the train. The complainant learnt that the train left at 15.15 hours/3.15pm itself. Due to advance departure of train the complainant’s work was spoiled .He purchased another ticket and travelled on the next day and faced much problem in his journey.

                The complainant immediately addressed a letter             dt.22-02-11 to 1^st opposite party along with original e-ticket to return the ticket amount and compensation for loss and mental agony.  The 2^nd opposite party replied on 28-03-11 repudiating the claim.  Further the complainant issued notice to 2^nd opposite party, who received the same and replied on 12-04-11 with false contents with a warning.  Railway department acted negligently by not following its own time table, which comes under deficiency of service on their part.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      Opposite parties 1&2 have filed their version, which is in brief as follows:

                The Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate this complaint since section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 expressly bars any other court or authority to exercise jurisdiction vested in section 13 of the same Act.  The refund of fare is a matter, which falls under section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and so only such tribunal has power to decide the said matter.

                The complainant has reserved ticket in train No.12078 Janashatabdi Express on 23-02-11 from Tenali to Guduru Railway Station. The legend (explanatory caption) printed on the ticket is general in nature and not a pre-requisite vis-a-viz the timings displayed at the Tenali Railway Station.   

                The complainant ought to have read the disclaimer printed in the time table on the inner second cover page and also on page No.49 which states that “though all efforts have been taken to make the schedule of services shown in this time table accurate, it may be noted that these are subject to change without notice.  As such these cannot be viewed as part of contract between the railways and traveling public. The railway administration disclaims liability for any inconvenience, expense or damage resulting from errors in the time table or from delayed public cancelled/diverted trains”.  As such due to technical reasons, the train was run on original root in time. The passenger/complainant would have got the correct information as he made efforts to enquiry from the railway enquiry provided at Tenali Railway station or from IVRS phone number 139, which informs the latest arrival and departure of train.  The complainant preferred claim for refund of ticket fare, which was repudiated vide this office letter dt.28-03-11 on the ground that the time mentioned on e-ticket and online PRS timing is one and the same and there is no change in the time.  Therefore, the Hon’ble Forum may please dismiss the complaint with costs on the above said grounds in the interest of justice.

4.             Complainant and opposite parties have filed their respective affidavits. Ex.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of complainant.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties.

1. Now the points for consideration are

1.    Whether the Forum has Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2.    Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of                         

       opposite parties?

3.    To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.     POINT No.1

                The complainant in his notice to opposite parties have asked about the refund of ticket amount, whereas in the complaint he has not taken such plea. The complainant has only asked the compensation and costs of complaint.  Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is not violated. Hence, the point of jurisdiction raised by opposite parties is untenable.

7.      POINTS  2 & 3

                The scheduled departure time of train No.12078 (Janashatabdi Express) to start from Tenali was mentioned as 15.04 hours/3.04pm.  The ticket was bearing explanatory caption “departure time printed on the ERS is liable to change new time table from            01-07-10”.   The complainant on seeing the above caption got doubt and have verified the railway time table, in which scheduled departure of the train in issue was 16.00 hours/4.00pm.  The complainant as per the complaint arrived at Tenali railway station by 3.30pm and found the train left.  The complainant’s allegation is that keeping in mind the scheduled departure time mentioned in the railway time table i.e., 16.00 hours/4.00pm, he arrived at railway station at 15.30 hours/3.30pm, so he missed the train.

8.      The complainant said that he verified the railway time table to know the timings.  In the same time table in the “guide lines to read the time table” page,(verified  Railway Time Table by forum) and  in page No.49(Produced by the opposite parties along with version to the forum ) ,there is a disclaimer which stated that “though all efforts have been taken to make the schedule of services shown in this time table accurate, it may be noted that these are subject to change without notice.  As such these cannot be viewed as part of contract between the railways and traveling public. The railway administration disclaims liability for any inconvenience, expense or damage resulting from errors in the time table or from delayed public cancelled/diverted trains”.

9.             It is made clear in the above disclaimer that the schedule of services are subject to change without notice and hence, the railway department disclaims their liability for any inconvenience caused to the public.  

10.           When the scheduled departure time was mentioned as 15.04 on the ticket dt.22-02-11, the complainant should follow the time mentioned in it.  Apart from it if he is so keen on the time table timings he should also have seen the disclaimer note present in the guide lines to read the time table page. The time mentioned in the ticket was subsequent to the issue of time table. Had he followed the timing given in the ticket i.e. 15.04hours/03.04pm he would not have missed the train. He ought to have enquired at Railway counter to know the correct timing, instead of Railway time table.

11.           In view of the above discussion, the Forum cannot find any fault with the opposite parties.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence the opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant.

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 21^st day of September, 2011.    

          MEMBER                         MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:        

For opposite parties:  NIL

                                                                                              PRESIDENT