DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No. : 359 of 2017
Date of Institution: 01.11.2017
Date of Decision : 22.07.2019
Karamjit Singh Dhaliwal aged about 55 years son of Ujjagar Singh Dhaliwal, resident of Opposite Sadar Police Station, Street No. 6, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
- General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
- Northern Railway, through Divisional Manager, Ferozepur.
- Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Faridkot.
- Anand Telecom, Opposite Balbir Hospital, Near Bus Stand, Faridkot through its authorized e-ticket agent.
.......Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Sandeep Khosla, Ld Counsel for OP-1 to 3,
Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for OP-4.
* * * * * * * * * *
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
cc no. 359 of 2017
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs.2,812/- alongwith interest and to pay Rs.8,000/- for cab and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant alongwith his family made plan to visit Leh Ladhak in September, 2017 an for this purpose, he got booked three tickets upto New Delhi from OP-4, who is agent of OP-1 to 3 and paid Rs.2,812/-as rail fare to OPs. Train bearing no.12138 was to run from Ferozepur on 29.09.2017 at 10.07 pm and it was to reach New Delhi on 30.09.2017 at 4.45 am and on same day i.e 30.09.2017, complainant had to board the flight from New Delhi to Leh Ladhak and he was to reach the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi at 7.00 am for fetching flight for Leh Ladhak. It is submitted that on 29.09.2017, complainant received a message at 5.43 pm that train no.12138 was cancelled. He immediately, contacted OP-4, but he did not give any satisfactory reply and having no other alternative, complainant immediately got booked a cab for reaching the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi and paid Rs.8,000/- as taxi fare. After return from Leh Ladhak, complainant approached OPs and requested for refund of rail fare but they put him off on one pretext or the other. Act of OPs in not giving timely intimation to complainant regarding cancellation of said train, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.
cc no. 359 of 2017
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14.11.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.
4 OP-1 to 3 filed reply through counsel wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong, incorrect and asserted that train in question left the Faridkot station as per schedule. It arrived at 22.07 hrs and departed at 22.13 on 29.09.2017 and it was not cancelled. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.
5 OP-4 also filed reply through counsel wherein admitted before the Forum that he is agent of OP-1 to 3. It is also admitted by OP-4 that complainant got booked three tickets for going to New Delhi from him and paid Rs.2,812/-as rail fare. It is averred that answering OP has nothing to do with the cancellation of said train as default if any is on the part of OP-1 to 3 and even he has no role to play in causing any harassment to complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-4 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
6 Ld counsel for complainant tendered in exparte evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.
7 Counsel for OP-1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vivek Sharma Ex OP-1 to 3/1, affidavit of Monu Luthra Ex OP-1 to 3/6 and documents Ex OP-1 to 3/2 to Ex OP-1 to 3/5 and thereafter, closed the
cc no. 359 of 2017
same. Ld Counsel for OP-4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Arti Chawla Ex OP-1/1 and then, closed the same.
8 We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the documents placed on record by respective parties.
9 From the careful perusal of the record it is observed that case of the complainant is that he got booked three rail tickets for going to New Delhi for boarding flight from New Delhi to Leh Ladhak, but on the day of going to New Delhi, he received message from OPs that train through which he alongwith his family was to go to New Delhi was cancelled and immediately he had to hire a taxi and reached New Delhi for further moving to Leh Ladhak through aeroplane. After return therefrom, he requested OPs for refund of rail fare, he paid to them, but they did not hear his genuine requests and paid no heed to redress his grievance. Grievance of complainant is that there is deficiency in service in not intimating the complainant regarding cancellation of said train in time and in not refunding the amount paid by him to Ops as rail fare. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. On the contrary, OP-1 to 3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that said train ran as per schedule and it was not cancelled and there is no deficiency in service on their part. On the other hand, OP-4 brought before the Forum that pleadings made by complainant are correct but averred that there is no default on the part of OP-4 in cancellation of said train.
cc no. 359 of 2017
10 To prove his pleadings, complainant has placed on record document Ex C-2 that is copy of IRTCs e-Ticketing Service that clearly reveals the pleadings of complainant that he got booked three tickets in the name of Punam Duggal, Paveen Duggar and Karamjit Singh for New Delhi and paid Rs.2,812.45 to OPs. LD counsel for complainant brought our attention towards document Ex C-3 which is copy of SMS/MMS sent by OPs to complainant wherein it is clearly stated that Train No.12138 has been cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances.Inconvenience caused to passengers is deeply regretted. It bears the date 29.09.2017, day Friday and time 17.43. Ld Counsel for complainant has also placed on record Press Release issued by Railway Authorities that bears the mention of trains cancelled on 29.09.2017 and intimation regarding cancellation of train no.12138 is also given in it as Ex C-4 and Ex C-5. These documents also reveal regarding cancellation of train no.12138. Through affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated his grievance and made request for refund of rail fare and amount spent by him for hiring the taxi for going from Faridkot to New Delhi for boarding the flight for Leh Ladhak. Complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings and documents produced by complainant are fully authentic and are beyond any doubt. On the other hand, OPs have nothing to contradict the contentions of complainant. Ops did not do anything needful to redress the grievance of complainant and non payment of compensation by OPs for harassment caused to him amounts to deficiency in service. OPs have been deficient in providing services to complainant and have also failed in redressing his grievance.
11 We are fully convinced with the evidence and arguments advanced by ld counsel for the complainant. The complainant succeeds
cc no. 359 of 2017
in proving his case, so the present complaint is hereby allowed against OP-1 to 3 with direction to them to refund Rs.2,812/-to complainant, which he paid as rail fare to railway authorities for going to New Delhi alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 29.09.2017 till final realization. OP-1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.6,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses incurred by complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-4 is dismissed as OP-4 has no role in cancellation of said train and in making refund of rail fare. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 22.07.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
