Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant was travelling by train with his pregnant wife and daughter from Angul to Ahmedabad on 15.07.2009 in the sleeper class in Puri-Ahmedabad Express. The complainant alleged to have paid a sum of rs.1110/- towards train fare and Rs.20.00 as service charge to the OP at the time of booking the E-ticket. The OP issued confirmed ticket and allotted seat/berth No.79,80 & 81 to the complainant and for self and his family members in Coach No.S-8. It is alleged inter-alia that on 15.07.2009 at 11 PM complainant and his family member boarded in Coach No.S-8 of the Puri-Ahmedabad Express at Angul Railway Station. After boarding in the said coach the complainant found no such seats were available. The complainant did not find the chart affixed on the outer side of the coach. The TTEs were not available. In the dead of night the complainant had to keep his luggage on the floor and sat with his family members awaiting the T.T.E. The other passengers were also causing disturbance while they are going to toilet but he tried to trace the TTE. It is alleged that at Raipur station one TTE took complainant to coach No.S-3, where TTE did not find any place. The TTE did not tell about allotment of berth in S-3. As such the complainant and family mebers were harassed. Therefore, he filed the complaint case.
4. Per contra, OP No.1 filed written version stating that there is no cause of action and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. The OP admitted about the booking of advance E-ticket by the complainant for himself and his family members. It is averred by the OP No.1 that seats are normally changed when high capacity coaches were converted to normal capacity coaches. It is asserted that the complainant committed mistake by boarding Coach No.S-8 and he should have verified the chart pasted on the coach. As such they denied about any such liability on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned
District Forum has passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx
“ On the aforesaid analysis of the facts and law we come to the conclusion that complainant is entitled to get back his train fair worth Rs.1,110.00 (Rupees One thousand one hundred ten) with interest @ 24 % from the date of booking the train ticket till the date of actual payment. The complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty thousand) and litigation expenses worth Rs.5,000.00(Rupees Five thousand). The complainant thus succeeds to establish his claim and the complaint petition is allowed on contest. The opp.parties are hereby directed to implement the aforesaid direction within a period of one month from the date of this order, failing which law shall take its own course.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum without going through the written version has passed the impugned order. According to him there is no cause of action and the complainant has not performed his duty to find out the seat. According to him the complainant should have searched for the seat from the date chart. Moreover, this matter should be agitated at Railway Claims Tribunal. As such learned District Forum should have applied judicial mind to the fact and law involved in this case. So, he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Forum analyzed the case as per the materials available on record and there is nothing to interfere with it. He supports the impugned order.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective counsels, perused the DFR and impugned order .
9. The complainant has clearly stated with the affidavit that he has booked E-ticket for his journey with his family members on 15.07.2009 from Angul to Ahmedabad. In support of his submission he has already filed the e-ticket. It appears from the copy of the ticket that in coach S-8 Sl.No. 79,80 & 81 were allotted to the complainant and his wife with his daughters of 7 years old. The rest of the allegations as mentioned in the complaint petition that they did not get such berth and finally harassed by the OP can not be said to be untrue. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP has not placed any evidence to prove the content of the written version except admitting the purchase of the ticket by the complainant. When the admittedly the tickets have been purchased but the facilities are not made available to the complainant, we are of the view that the complainant has not only proved his case but also proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
10. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case, we hereby affirm the impugned order . So far amount of compensation is concerned, it appears sane is just and proper because the pregnant wife of the complainant being mentally and physically harassed in a long journey, therefore the entire impugned order is confirmed. We direct the OP to comply the entire impugned order within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
