Delhi

StateCommission

FA/186/2014

G.M. NORTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH - Opp.Party(s)

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                             Date of Decision: 18.10.2016

First Appeal No. 186/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 17.01.2014 passed in Complaint Case No. 191/2013by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M-Block, Ist Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate New Delhi)

In the matter of:

1. G.M. Northern Railways

Head Office Baroda House

Kasturba Gandhi Marg

New Delhi-110001

 

2. G.M. North Central Railways

Subedar Ganj

Allahabad, U.P. 211003

 

3. U.O.I. Ministry of Railways

Through its Secretary

Rail Bhawan, Rafi Marg

New Delhi                                        ..........Appellants

 

Versus

 

1. Justice Sh. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh

S/o Late Sh. Raosaheb Deshmukh

 

2. Prerna Deshmukh

W/o Justice Sh. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh

 

3. Shraddha Deshmukh

D/o Justice Sh. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh

All Resident of 77, Type VII Bunglow

New Moti Bagh

New Delhi                                            .........Respondents

                                                                  

                                                                  

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       President

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                         Yes

 

 

 

SALMA NOOR – MEMBER

 

 

1.         Brief facts of the present case are that the respondents/complainants booked tickets from Datia (MP) to Bhopal on 28.11.2012 by Chattisgarh Express. The respondents/complainants were having confirmed reserved tickets having seat No. 29, 30 and 41 in Coach B-3. It was alleged that when the train arrived on the platform No. 2, the respondents/complainants could not enter the gate of B-3 coach. They found door of the said coach locked from inside and the schedule stoppage was for only two minutes. The respondents/complainants were in a great tension and anxiety as theywere fearing of missing the train. A police attendant of respondent No.1/complainantNo.1 and had opened the gate of coach-3 and got inside the train through vestibule and thereuponhurriedly respondents/complainants entered in the said coach. On entering the coach they learnt from TTE that there was no reservation in the name of the respondents/complainants in that coach and the seat No. 29, 30 & 41 were reserved for some other passengers, who were supposed to board the train from onward station Vidisha. The respondent No.1/complainant No.1 who at that time was Chairman of Company Law Board New Delhi, having status of siting judge of High Court stood clueless and embarrassed in coach with the luggage, not knowing what to do. The TTE after sometime found that their names were shown in coach B-2, at seat No. 17, 18 and 20. They were asked to shift to Coach B-2. With great difficulty till arrival of Jhansi Railway Station, the respondent No. 1/complainant No.1 somehow managed to carry the luggage in the fast moving train from coach No. B-3 through the vestibule to coach No. B-2. The respondent No. 1/complainant No. 1 had suffered a slipdisc in the past and was unable to lift heavy luggage. Being the only male member with his family, he had to shift the luggage himself in the moving train through vestibule which had caused severe pain to respondent No. 1/complainant No. 1and had remained under medication and suffered trauma and physical discomfort. The respondents/complainantssent a legal notice dated 23.12.2012 to General Manager Northern Railway. After 2 and half Months of the notice, it was informed by the appellants/OPs to the respondent No. 1/complainant No. 1 that according to status report generated from the reservation system, berth numbers 17, 18 and 20 in B-2 coach were allotted against HO quota in train No. 18238 in favour of Hon’ble Judge i.e. Respondent No.1/Complainant No. 1 after generating a fresh PNR No. 224-1447785 and the earlier PNR was released.
2.         It was alleged that in view of the failure of the appellant to inform the respondents/complainants of release of reserved seats without any request by the respondents/complainants and the physical pain and mental agony suffered by the respondents/complainants due to deficiency in service, the respondents/complainants, filed a consumer complaint before the Ld. District Forum.
3.         Notice was issued to the appellant/OP. The appellant/OP filed written statement wherein the appellant/OP had alleged that since the respondents/complainants while fillingin the requisition slip for booking ticket mentioned as Retd. Justice, the booking clerk had put a star mark at the time of booking denoting that the berths were booked by a VIP. On the basis of Commercial Circular dated 19.07.2005 and in view of ladiestravelling alongwith the respondent No.1/complainant No.1, berths which were scattered were clubbed together in Coach No. B-2. Hence the berthswere changed in order to put them together considering the VIP status of the respondents/complainants. The aforesaid act of the appellant/OP was just to facilitate the VIP and to give convenience to themas such it cannot stated to be negligence or deficiency in service. It was also denied by the appellant/OP in its written statement that B-3 coach was closed from inside. The appellant/OP also resisted the complainanton the point of territorial jurisdiction.
4.         The respondents/complainantshad filed rejoinder wherein they had raised an issue not only about the deficiency on the part of the appellant/OP as mentioned above but also allegedthat a false plea was taken by the appellant/OP that the seats were allotted in VIP Quota when no one had approached or requested for accommodation in theVIP quota as the respondents/complainants had confirmed tickets in B-3.
5.         Ld. District Forum after examining the material on record held as under:

“We have considered the complaint in the light of reply filed. The Ld. Counsel for Railway wanted to make long submissions, to defend a case in which doctrine of res-ipsa loqutor applies, and it is for OP to explain. The written version has failed to show any communication to complaints about change of bogies and sitting plan, and why bogies B-3 was found locked, as also release of seats in B-3 without anyone seeking H.O. Quota, for complainant and how the new PNR was created. The earlier ticket placed at page 29 of the file does not indicate an VIP status.

 These facts clearly show an attempt inside the Railways to accommodate some other persons in place of reserved seats, for complainants for whatever reasons, resulting in avoidable hardship, inconvenience, humiliation and harassment to complainant, Judges who are not used to such hiccups and inconvenience in the journeys during the career. We hold OP guilty of deficiency and award punitive damages for resorting to falsehood to defend in defensible rather than straight away expressing regrets.

We award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainants together as a consolidated damages for deficiencies etc., and award Rs. 10,000/- for litigation expenses.

6.         Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Forum appellant/OP has filed the appeal before this Commission. We have heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
7.         Appellant/OP has filed the present appeal mainly on two grounds. One that, the respondents/complainants have not suffered any loss, discomfort, pain and agony as defined under the Consumer Protect Act, 1986. Rather the appellant/OP considering the VIP status of the respondent No.1/complainant No.1being a Retd. Judge of High Court, changed the berths of the respondents/complainants in order to put them at one place which was as per rules and that will not come under any deficiency of service in any manner. This submission of the appellant/OP is based on a commercial circular dated 19.07.2005. A reading of the commercial circular dated 19.07.2005 clearly shows that the circular is with regard to issue of non-confirmation of wait listed tickets of the MPs at the train originating stations on the pretext of the same being booked from remote locations. Thus the commercial circular is with regard to the wait listed tickets and therefore cannot be applicable to the present case. The respondents/complainants were issued a confirmed ticket with reserved berths. In any case since no request for allotting any VIP/HO Quota was made by the respondent/complainant hence there was no occasion of the appellant/OP to interfere with the reserved seats, which were issued to the respondents/complainants. In our view, berths of the respondents/complainants were re-arranged and clubbed together without the knowledge and prior intimation of the respondents/complainants which led to harassment and physical discomfort and this is a fit case of deficiency of service.
8.         Another ground taken by the appellant in its appeal is that the complaint was not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant/OP has referred to Sonic Surgicalv. National Insurance Company Ltd. IX (2009) SLT 111 decided on 20.10.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of Indiav. Virender Ajmani Appeal No. 2596/2006 decided on 30.04.2010. In our opinion said cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum New Delhi has the requisitejurisdiction to try and entertain the present case in consonance with the Section 11(2)( c ) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 wherein a complaint is maintainable in a District Forum where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. The factual matrix of the matter is that the respondents/complainants purchased/booked the confirmed tickets from Sarojini Nagar Booking Office at New Delhi for a journey from Datia to Bhopal. The respondents/complainants suffered inconvenience during the travel, the ticketsfor which were purchased at New Delhi. Since the confirmed tickets werebooked for the journey in New Delhi, the cause of action has arisen in New Delhi, hence the allegation of the appellant/OP that the Consumer Forum at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case is baseless. The respondents/complainants have relied upon the various judgments in support of their stand that where a part of cause of action (buying of tickets in the present matter) has arisen, the courts in the same place will have the jurisdiction to try the matter. In the matter of U.S. Awasthy v. Gulf Air & Anr.(FA No. 184 of 2001) decided on 30.09.2003, the National Commission has held that it is not disputed that since the tickets were purchased in Delhi, whereof part of cause of action arose in Delhi, the court in Delhi will have competent jurisdiction.  In the matter of Northern Railways v. Balbir Singh (FA No. 311/2014) decided on 25.09.2014,the State Commission, Chandigarh held that since the tickets were purchased in Chandigarh and, as such, a part of cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the District Forum at Chandigarh has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. Thus it is clear that in the present case a part of cause of action arose in Delhi, where the tickets were purchased. It is also pertinent to mention here that a ticket is a contract between the parties as it is held in the case of ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. A.P.Agencies, Salem AIR1989SC1239, the Apex Court has clearly stated that a suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred.
9.         In view of the aforesaid judgments it is clear that the Ld. District Forum had the jurisdiction to try the present case.
10. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Ld. District Forum accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
11. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
12. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

(Justice Veena Birbal)
President

 

(Salma Noor)​

Member