In the matter of an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite parties.

The Factual matrix  of the case is that:-    The Complainant  is a resident of Khariar Road   in Ward No. 10 ,P.s: Jonk ,Dist: Nuapada  under  the jurisdiction  of  this Forum. The complainant filled up  a reservation requisition  Form  on 22.10.2015  from Passenger Reservation  Ticket Booking  Counter, Khariar Road  Railway Station  for reservation  in Class Ac –III  in Train  No. 18239 for journey  in train on 31.10.2015 with his family  includes  two female  and one child  from Raipur to  Nagpur Passenger Reservation Ticket Booking Counter  at Khariar Road Railway Station. On payment of Rs. 2125.00 by the complainant, OP No.5 issued a reservation ticket   to the complainant. On 31.10.2015, the complainant boarded at Raipur  in Coach  No. B1 having  Berth No. 1,2,3 & 4  of train  No. 18239 and after some time the other passengers came  there and asked to the complainant  and his family  members to vacate  the seats as it was allotted to them. The complainant showed his ticket to the other passengers, but one of the passengers found   that the ticket of the complainant was not of the aforesaid train rather it was issued for train No. 18237.  The complainant surprised and humiliated in front of the passengers and immediately get down from the said train and cancelled his journey by train and he reached to Nagpur by Road for medical purpose.

                        On 4.11.2015 , the complainant  went to the OP No.5 and requested him to show his reservation  requisition form  but he misbehaved  and denied to do so ,then the complainant requested the Station Superintendent  ( OP No.4)   to show the said form and  OP No.4 issued a true copy with  his signature and seal  to the complainant  and confirmed  that the complainant has rightly filled up the form ,but due to negligence of the OP No.5 a wrong reservation ticket   has been issued to the complainant  and it shows deficiency  in service  on the part of the opposite parties and they are jointly and severally  liable    and he claimed compensation  as prayed for.

          The complainant  relied  the documents as under:_

1. Original  Reservation Ticket   of Train No. 18237  dated 31.10.2015.
2. True copy of Reservation Requisiation Form  issued by the Station Superintendent ,Khaiar Road Railway Station.

The complainant also  filed an affidavit as well as their  advocate  filed a  written argument  and citation in  support of their claim.

Being noticed, the opposite parties have appeared alongwith their  advocate and filed their  written version with specific Plea  and documents  i.e  Attested true copy of  requisition form as Annexure -1, Attested copy of attendance register  as Annexure -2,Attested copy of complaint register as Annexure -3, and original cancellation ticket as  Annexure-4. The advocate for the opposite parties has also filed a written argument and citation in support of their Plea.

The opposite parties  have  admitted the paragraph No.1 and 3 of the complaint  petition and  partly admitted the    paragraph  No.6 of the  complaint petition  and they denied  the rest  of the contents  of paragraph No.6 as well as denied the contents  of paragraph No.2,4 and 5  of the complaint petition. The OPs have also challenged on non-joinder of necessary party along with the maintainability and jurisdiction   in this case.

As per the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered:-

1. Whether  the complaint is maintainable  in the eye of law ?
2. Whether the complainant is a consumer  or not?
3. Whether  the Forum has jurisdiction  to adjudicate  upon  and there is cause of action  ?
4. Whether  there is  any negligence  and deficiency in service  on the part of the OPs ?
5. To what relief ,if any the complainant is entitled to  ?

ISSUE NO. I TO IV

Since the issues are very much linked up with each other, those are taken up for jointly   discussion and findings.

On the first stage, the question of status of a consumer should  be cleared. In the present case  the complainant is a consumer  of the opposite parties. On  perusal of case record as well as the documents  of complainant ,it is found that the  complainant filled up a  reservation  requisition form  on 22.10.2015 in  Reservation   Booking Counter  at Khariar Road  Railway Station  for reservation  in Class  III  AC  in Train No. 18239 for  journey in train  on 31.10.2015 with his family includes two female and one child  from Raipur to Nagpur. On payment of Rs. 2125.00 by the complainant, OP No.5  issued a Reservation Ticket  to the complainant. On 31.10.2015, the complainant  alongwith  their family  boarded at Raipur   in Coach  No.B1 having  Berth  No. 1,2,3 &4  of Train No. 18239 and after some times the  other  passengers came there and asked to the complainant  and their  family members to vacate  the seats as it was allotted to them and the complainant  saw that the  ticket issued  to him for train No. 18237 for which  the complainant  and their family members     surprised and humiliated  infront of the passengers and they get down from the said  train and cancelled  their journey by train  and they reached  to Nagpur  by Road for medical purpose.

On 4.11.2015, the complainant  went to OP No. 5 to   issue  a copy of reservation  requisition form  but  he did not  heed so that  he approached  the station  superintendent  ( OP No.4) for the same  and accordingly  he issued  a true copy  with his  signature and seal  to the complainant  and confirmed   that  the complainant  has rightly  filled up the form ,but due to negligence of OP No. 5  a wrong  reservation  ticket  has been  issued   to the complaint.

As per Consumer Protection Act ,1986 section ,2(d)( ii) explain consumer means  any person “ who hires or avails of any services for a consideration  which has been paid or    promised  or partly promised or any  system of deferred  payment  and includes  any beneficiary of such services other than commercial purpose” . So  the status of consumer  can not be deniable and thereby  the maintainability.

Here, the complainant  is a  resident  of Khariar Road  as well as office of the OP  No.4 & 5  at Khariar Road ,Dist : Nuapada  .So the complaint  is within the jurisdiction of the Forum.

In another vital point is that   the opposite parties have stated in their  written version  in paragraph No. 5 i.e “That  the contentions  made in para-1 & 3 are admitted ,as such need no comments.”

Further  the opposite parties  have stated in their  written version in para-6 i.e “ OP No.4  issued a true  copy with seal and signature  to the complainant .”

Further  the opposite parties   have  also stated  in their  written version  in paragraph No.10 i.e” That it is further  submitted  that it might be a clerical ,typographical  error  committed by the  said Junior Commercial Clerk, Prem Prakash Munda as in requisition form the numerical  word  18239/18237is  not  clearly   under  stable ,illegible  and visible  as “ 7” in place  of “9” .That  as the word   “9” is seems to be word  “7” as such  on good faith  the  said  Junior  Commercial  Clerk  issued  the alleged Ticket  mentioned the word  18237.

So it is clear crystal  that the  negligence  is purely  on the  part of the opposite parties.  

 So far as the point of jurisdiction is that  as per Section 37 clause  ( c ) the complaint  of  complainant do not fall  within the jurisdiction  of  the Railway Tribunal as per Railway Act  1989 as under:-

“ Section 37 –matters not within the jurisdiction of  the  Tribunal-Nothing in this chapter shall confer jurisdiction  on the Tribunal in respect of

1. Classification or reclassification  of any commodity.
2. Fixation  of wharf age and  demurrage  charges ( including  conditions attached  to such charges);
3. Fixation  of fares levied  for the carriage of passengers and freight  levied for the carriage of luggage ,parcels, railway material and military  traffic; and
4. Fixation of lump sum rates.”

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in  “Neeraj Munjal and others –versus …Atul  Grover( minor)  and others,2005(3) CLT-30 of the Judgement held  that  the Court couldn’t  deprive  the parties  from a remedy , which is otherwise  available  to them; in law. It  has been further held  that a Court of law has to jurisdiction  to direct a matter  to be  governed by one Statute when  provision  of other Statute are available.

                    So  we are of considered opinion that, this Forum has wide jurisdiction  to adjudicate   the present dispute and the complainant has cause of action.

Further the Hon’ble Supreme  Court held in the case of GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT  AUTHORITY   V/S  BALABIR SINGH  that each and every element of suffering  while availing service as a consumer  has to be taken into consideration  while compensating  him  for the loss or injury or otherwise  suffered  by him due to negligence or deficiency in service  of the service provider.

In further the  Apex Court  has held that the remedy  under the Consumer Protection Act  is an addition and not in a derogation of any other law  for the  time being in  force  including the Indian Railway Act.

Further it is seen that as per Section 2(1) ( g) of the Consumer Protection Act ,1986, every  passenger travelling inside the train is a consumer by virtue of hiring   service against consideration  and therefore  any loss or injury suffered by the   passenger either at  Platform ,inside or outside  the train  entitles  him and his legal heirs  as to a reasonable amount as compensation.

So  far  as the concerned of non-joinder of necessary party  raised  by the opposite parties, it  seems that  the  complainant has filed this case as per designation  of the opposite parties  but not in their personal name  so the question of non-joinder of necessary  party  does not arise.

Perused the written argument and documents  of complainant as well as the Ops we found that the documents i.e “True copy of Reservation  Requisition Form “  filed by the  complainant as well as the opposite parties is relevant one and as such taken in consideration

Further  we perused the citation filed by the complainant  is relevant  and applicable  in this case but the citation filed by the opposite parties is not at all applicable  to any corner  and any help  to them.

So  we are  of considered  view  that the   opposite  parties  have  failed to give proper  service  to the complainant  for which  the complainant  is suffering financial  loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency of service by the opposite parties.

Thus, the opposite parties  are liable  for the deficiency  in service.

Accordingly the issues are answered  in favour of the complainant.

ISSUE No.V

It is clear crystal  that the complainant  has proved  his case  and he is entitled to get  relief  in this case. Hence order.

Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

                                      O R D E R

 In  the aforesaid  matrix  of facts and circumstances, the  complaint is allowed and  we direct  u/s 14 ( d) of the Consumer Protection Act ,1986 as below:-

1.  We direct the opposite parties  to pay the amount  Rs. 2125.00       ( Rupees  Two thousand  one hundred  twenty five ) only to the complainant  towards the  cost of Ticket  Reservation  within 30          ( thirty)  days from the date of order.
2.  We further direct the opposite parties  to pay the amount Rs. 7,000.00 ( Rupees Seven thousand) only  to the complainant  towards the  cost of  Taxi Hire  as they  have completed their journey  by Road  instead of Train journey  within 30( thirty) days from the date of order.
3.  We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only  to the complainant  as compensation towards mental agony and harassment within 30( thirty)  days from the date of order and to further pay Rs. 5,000.00  (Rupees Five thousand) only towards  litigation cost.
4. Failing which the above order ,the complainant is at liberty to  take steps as per process of law.

Judgement pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 22^nd day of September 2017.