STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.The Additional General Manager, Northern Railways, Head Quarters, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2.The Chief Reservation Supervisor, Northern Railways Booking Centre, Railway Station, Chandigarh.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

Dr. N. K. Singla S/o Sh. Om Parkash Singla R/o D-50, Panchsheel Enclave, Bishanpura, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

              SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

Argued by: Ms. Monika Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.

               Dr. D. K. Singla, Respondent in person.

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.09.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-

“12.    We accordingly allow this complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to refund the excess recovered amount of Rs.320/- taken from the Complainant. This amount be returned along with interest @9% p.a. from the date it was taken, till it is refunded. Opposite Parties are directed to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.2500/- to the Complainant towards costs of compensation and costs of litigation. 

13.                This order be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.”

2.           The facts, in brief, are that on 14.8.2012, the complainant booked a circular tour ticket No.07180321, from the Booking Centre at Railway Station, Chandigarh i.e. Opposite Party No.2, for journey to be undertaken on 3.9.2012, in Three Tier A.C., by paying Rs.3,712/- (Annexure C-1). It was stated that on 30.8.2012, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant got the said booking cancelled, four days prior to the date of journey. It was further stated that the Reservation Officer wrongly made a deduction of Rs.440/- as against deduction of Rs.120/-, because the deduction was made for separate laps of journey. It was further stated that since it was a circular tour ticket, for three laps of journey, a total deduction of Rs.120/- was required to be made. It was further stated that the refund Rules, framed by the Opposite Parties were amended w.e.f. 1.3.2000 and as per “cancellation charges on multiple Journey tickets”, the cancellation charges or clerkage charges, as the case may be, were to be levied only once on the entire amount of the ticket, irrespective of the reservation status of different laps of journey and not separately for each lap of journey. It was further stated that even on earlier occasions, the Opposite Parties wrongly deducted the cancellation charges, for each lap of journey. It was further stated that in similar Appeal No.97 of 2007, arising out of the order dated 26.2.2007, passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh, this Commission vide order dated 16.5.2007 (Annexure C-4), while setting aside the order of the District Forum, ordered the refund of excess amount, alongwith interest plus compensation and cost of litigation. It was further stated that, on 5.9.2013, the complainant personally met Opposite Party No.1, but it while ignoring the said judgment, informed that the deduction was made correctly for each lap separately. It was further stated that the complainant also submitted a written complaint (Annexure C-5) to the Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railways, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund Rs.320/-, charged in excess, pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.           The Opposite Parties, in their written version, took-up a preliminary objection that the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction, to adjudicate upon the matter, as the tickets were got cancelled at New Delhi. On merits, it was stated that no wrong deduction was made and the same was made as per the Indian Railway Conference Association, Coaching Tariff No.26, Part I, Volume I and the Rules pertaining to cancellation of ticket of circular journey is 213.6 and 213.7 but the complainant relied upon Rule 213.8(1) which pertained to cancellation charges of multiple journey ticket (Annexure R-1). It was further stated that as per Rule 213.6(1), unused ticket on which reservation was made, if presented by passenger for cancellation, then the refund of fare was to be made after deduction of the cancellation charges, at the flat rate of Rs.70/- for Air Conditioned 1^stnd

4.           The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

7.           We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, respondent in person, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.           The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties submitted that the disputed ticket of the respondent/complainant was a circular tour ticket cancellation of which was governed by Rules 213.6 and 213.7 of the Indian Railway Conference Association, Coaching Tariff No.20, Part I, Volume I.  It was further submitted that cancellation charges were correctly deducted.

9.        The respondent/complainant, submitted that since the cancellation was required to be regulated in terms of Rule 213.6(1)(a), the Appellant/Opposite Parties wrongly made deduction of Rs.440/- whereas deduction of Rs.120/- only was required to be made.

10.         As is evident, from the record, the respondent/complainant had booked circular tour ticket No.07180301 on 14.08.2012, against payment of Rs.3712/- for journey to be undertaken in Three Tier A.C. on 3.9.2012. When he presented the ticket for cancellation on 30.8.2012, four days before the scheduled journey, cancellation fee of Rs.440/- was deducted. The respondent/complainant, contended that only an amount of Rs.120/- could be deducted.  Rule 213.6(1)(a) is extracted below:-

“213.6 Unused ticket on which reservation has been made:-

(1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, if a ticket on which reservation of a seat or berth has been made is presented by the passenger or his agent to a station master for cancellation, refund of fare shall be made after deduction cancellation charges from the fare as follows:-        

(a)   If the ticket is presented for cancellation more than 24 hours before the schedule of the train, the per passenger cancellation charge shall be deducted at a flat rate of Rupees seventy for airconditioned first class/ executive class, Rupees sixty for airconditioned sleeper class 2-tier/ airconditioned 3-tier sleeper class/ first class/ airconditioned chair car, Rupees forty for sleeper class, Rupees twenty for second class.”

11.         The bare perusal of the above provision clearly reveals that the cancellation charges for Three Tier A.C Sleeper Class were Rs.60/- and since the ticket was for two persons, an amount of Rs.120/- was required to be charged on account of cancellation, as the ticket was presented for cancellation more than 24 hours before the schedule of the train. The aforesaid provision, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to mean that it is not applicable for circular tour ticket. From the contents, logical inference is that it has its application, even for circular tour ticket. The Appellants/Opposite Parties have failed to substantiate its view point by leading cogent evidence that there are separate Rules for regulating cancellation, in respect of circular tour ticket. Even if the argument of the Appellants/Opposite Parties is accepted that the cancellation of circular tour ticket is governed by Rules 213.6 and 213.7,  the same are of no help to them as it is nowhere mentioned in the aforesaid Rules that the cancellation charges are permissible on each lap of journey. Even Rule 205(4) is only with regard to fare in respect of circular tour ticket and nothing is mentioned regarding cancellation charges.

12.       To support his contention, the respondent/complainant also relied upon letter No.C.14/G-IV/RTIA/151/13 dated 10.07.2013, addressed to him, by the Senior Commercial Manager, & AIPO, South Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Commercial Branch, Secunderabad, obtained under the RTI Act, 2005.  As per the aforesaid letter, if cancellation is done 3 days, in advance, from the date of Journey, the minimum cancellation charges (per passenger) for confirmed 3 AC tickets were Rs.60/- upto 31.03.2013.  Since the ticket was for two persons, cancellation charges to the extent of Rs.120/- only and not Rs.440/- ought to have been deducted. The contention of Opposite Parties that the letter aforesaid of the Southern Railways could not override the provisions of the Rules is without any basis, as even the Rules, extracted above, do not provide for cancellation charges, in the manner, it was done by the Appellants/Opposite Parties. While the contents of letter dated 10.07.2013 of South Central Railway cannot be overlooked, at the same time, the Appellants/Opposite Parties have failed to adduce satisfactory and convincing evidence, to the effect that the cancellation charges of Rs.440/- were rightly levied upon the respondent/complainant. The District Forum, thus, rightly ordered for the refund of the excess amount, charged by the Appellants/Opposite Parties vide the order impugned.

13.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties and the respondent/complainant in person.

14.         In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties, is dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, is upheld.

16.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

5^th

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

AD

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.443 of 2013)

Argued by: Ms. Monika Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.

               Dr. D. K. Singla, Respondent in person.

Dated the 5^th

ORDER

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties has been dismissed, with no order as to costs. The impugned order, passed by the District Forum, has been upheld.