BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No: 191/2009     Filed on 29.07.2009

ORDER DATED: 29.06.2018

Complainants:

(by Adv. V. Jyothi)

Opposite parties:

(By Adv. S. Renganathan)

This C.C having been heard on 05.03.2018, the Forum on 29.06.2018 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. P. SUDHIR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant’s case is as follows.  The 1^st complainant is a registered society formed for protecting rights of and working for the welfare of consumers in the Trivandrum district.  The 2^nd complainant is a government servant.  He is residing in his above said address and is a member of the 1^st complainant’s society.  On 04.03.2007 above said member reserved train tickets PNR No.2317594192 (Kalka – Delhi) and PNR No.2237971952 (Shimla – Kalka) dated 11.05.2007 for himself and his three family members.  The tickets were booked at Trivandrum Central Station using credit card of the 2^nd complainant.  Due to some unforeseen circumstances, the 2^nd complainant cancelled the tickets at Shimla station on 08.05.2007.  Since the ticket was booked using credit card, the refund could be arranged only through credit card for which facility was not available at Shimla station.  Hence the 2^nd complainant surrendered the ticket at Shimla station.  While surrendering the tickets at Shimla station, the 2^nd complainant was issued Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) No.754061.  It was also directed to forward the original passenger foil to the 2^nd opposite party.  As per the guidelines for passengers specified in the TDR, the 2^nd opposite party sent an application for refund of fare along with original TDR and claimed the refund amount in June 2007.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the 2^nd complainant through his letter dated 13.09.2007 that the original TDR, tickets and application were forwarded to the 3^rd opposite party.  But the 3^rd opposite party instead of arranging the refund, requested the 2^nd complainant to send the original passenger foil of TDR No.754061 through their letter dated 03.10.2007.  Then the 2^nd complainant replied them on 26.10.2007 that the original passenger foil was forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party.   But without considering 2^nd complainant’s reply, the 3^rd opposite party again and again sent letters with the same request.  Aggrieved by the attitude of the 3^rd opposite party, the 2^nd complainant sent a letter dated 10.06.2008 to the Deputy Director, Southern Railway and its copy was sent to all opposite parties.  But the 2^nd opposite party’s grievance is still sustaining.  The amount due to the 2^nd complainant on account of cancellation has not been refunded till date.  Complainant sent photocopies of all relevant documents along with all of his letters to the opposite parties for their ready reference.  The cost of ticket to be refunded is Rs.3,248/-.  The ticket was booked through credit card authorities by the 2^nd complainant.  Thus he is entitled to get interest of Rs.3,248/- from 08.05.2007.  Instead of this, these complainants spent around Rs.500/- for taking photocopies and courier charges in order to make several reminders from 13.09.2007 onwards.  Moreover complainant had been distressed and harassed by delaying the refund.   The basic reason for all the sufferings of the complainant is using the credit card for booking tickets and cancelling it at Shimla station.  This thought caused great mental agony and pain to the complainant for which the Railway authorities are responsible to compensate.  Using the modern technology caused great loss to the 2^nd complainant.  Thus the 2^nd complainant entrusted the matter to the 1^st complainant to do an amenable settlement with the opposite party so as to avoid litigation.  The 1^st complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties through which he demanded the refund along with its interest, compensation and cost. But the opposite parties did not care to send even a reply ot that notice.  Hence this complaint.

Notice sent to opposite parties.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 appeared and filed version. 

Issues

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

Issues (i) and (ii)

          Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P8 marked and examined as PW1.   PW1 cross examined by opposite parties.  Opposite parties filed chief examination affidavit and examined as DW1.   DW1 cross examined by complainant.

          The deposition of PW1 in page 2 original tickets surrender ചെയ്യുന്ന സമയം Railway–യിൽ നിന്നും TDR deposition foil  തന്നിരുന്നോ (Q) അതെ (A) Refund application കൊടുക്കുന്ന സമയം ടി TDR deposition foil photocopy  മാത്രമാണ് surrender ചെയ്തത് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു (Q) ശരിയല്ല (A) original  TDR ആണ് കൊടുത്തത് എന്നതിന് എന്തെങ്കിലും രേഖയുണ്ടോ (Q) P3-ൽ ഉണ്ട്  (A)  P3-ൽ താഴെ in original എന്നെഴുതിയിരിക്കുന്നത് deposition foilþsâ  original അല്ല എന്നും  CCM’s foil ആണെന്നും പറയുന്നു (Q) എനിക്ക്  Northern Shimla Railway Station-Â നിന്നും തന്ന document original  ആണ്  refund-ന് അയച്ചു കൊടുത്തത്.  The deposition of DW1 in page 3 (Ext. P3 shown to witness)  Can you explain this document (Q)  This was issued by Chief Commercial Manager (Refund) of Northern Railway addressed to party forwarding CCM foil along with original ticket to Southern Railway who is the competent person to process the refund along with a copy to S.R. for necessary action (A)  TDR and PNR in original of CCM foil is received there as is mentioned in Ext. P3 (A) On 11.05.2007, the 2^nd complainant reserved train tickets PNR No.2317594192 (Kalka – Delhi) and PNR No.2237971952 (Shimla – Kalka) for himself and his three family members.  The tickets were booked at Trivandrum Central Station using his credit card.  Due to some unforeseen circumstances, the 2^nd complainant cancelled the tickets at Shimla station on 08.05.2007.  Since the ticket was booked using credit card, the refund could be arranged only through credit card for which facility was not available at Shimla station.  The 2^nd complainant surrendered the above said ticket at Shimla station.  While surrendering the tickets at Shimla station, the 2^nd opposite party issued Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) No.754061 and directed to forward the original passenger foil to them.   Copy of (TDR) No.754061 dated 08.05.2007 is the Ext. P1.  As per the guidelines for passengers specified in the TDR, the 2^nd complainant sent an application for refund of fare along with original TDR and claimed the refund amount in June 2007.  Copy of such supplication for refund of fare is the Ext. P2.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the 2^nd complainant through their letter dated 13.09.2007 that the original TDR, tickets and application were forwarded to the 3^rd opposite party.  But the 3^rd opposite party instead of arranging the refund, requested the 2^nd complainant to send the original passenger foil of TDR No.754061 through their letter dated 03.10.2007.

Then the 2^nd complainant replied them on 26.10.2007 that the original passenger foil was forwarded to the 2^nd opposite party.   But without considering 2^nd complainant’s reply, the 3^rd opposite party again and again sent letters with the same request.  The letter dated 13.09.2007 sent by 2^nd opposite party are the documents marked as Ext. P3 to P5.  Aggrieved by the attitude of the 3^rd opposite party, the 2^nd complainant sent a letter dated 10.06.2008 to the Deputy Director, Southern Railway and its copy was sent to all opposite parties.  Letter dated 10.06.2008 is marked as Ext. P6.  But the 2^nd opposite party’s grievance is still sustaining.  The amount due to the 2^nd complainant on account of cancellation has not been refunded till date only because credit card facility is not available in Shimla station.   The cost of ticket to be refunded is Rs.3,248/-.  The ticket was booked through credit card authorities by the 2^nd complainant.  The basic reason for all the sufferings of the complainant is using the credit card for booking tickets and cancelling it at Shimla station.  This thought caused great mental agony and pain to the 2^nd complainant for which the Railway authorities are responsible to compensate.  Modern technology is adopted by the opposite party for their service to their customers.  But when it was availed, it caused great loss to the 2^nd complainant.  Thus the 2^nd complainant entrusted the matter to the 1^st complainant to do an amenable settlement with the opposite party so as to avoid litigation.  The 1^st complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties through which he demanded the refund along with its interest, compensation and cost. But the opposite parties did not care to send even a reply to that notice.  Notice sent by the 1^st complainant is Ext. P7.  Ext. P3 letter is issued to the 2^nd complainant in which the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds) mentioned as follows:  “copy together with the referred, forwarded to Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), Southern Railway, Chennai for favour of disposal and direct reply to the party” referred documents mentioned in the Ext. P3 letter are application, 1- TDR, 2 – PNR (in original) Total 3 documents.  Even after mentioning the above said facts the 3^rd opposite party whom the originals were forwarded asked originals from the 2^nd complainant.  here the opposite party provided a facility to book the train ticket through credit cards.  A credit card service charge is also paid in addition to the actual ticket charges.  A traveller can at any time cancel his train ticket.  After booking a train seat, if it is cancelled 1^st opposite party charge for it accordance with the time of cancellation and the time of departure of the train.   Cancellation charges are also taken by the opposite party.  This complainant is not at all challenging any of the charges imposed by the opposite party while cancelling a ticket.  If the complainant cancelled the ticket through online the refund amount will be credited after deducting the cancellation charges, to his account through which the 2^nd complainant made payment at the time of booking tickets.  Here the refunding was not happened only because the credit card booking and cancellation facility availed by the 1^st opposite party was not at Shimla station.  If any manner of performance may be given by the opposite party to the consumers after remitting its payment, it should be expected to get throughout the journey.  If cancellation of ticket through online is not available at the destination, it should be informed at the very beginning of the booking of non-refunded ticket.  This is clear imperfection, short coming and inadequacy in service from the part of the 1^st opposite party which is defined as deficiency in service in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The 2^nd complainant properly submitted for refunding the ticket amount at Shimla station.  Even after neither the amount has refunded nor do they give any proper reply after considering the facts.  Section 3 provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.  On the above said provisions were giving the powers to the consumer forum to hear the railway consumer disputes which is relating to “deficiency in service”.  “deficiency in service means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance, which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

          Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund of tickets PNR No.2317594192 and PNR No.2237971952 for an amount of Rs.3,248/- with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 08.05.2007 till realisation and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings.

          In the result complaint is allowed opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund of tickets PNR No.2317594192 and PNR No.2237971952 for an amount of Rs.3,248/- with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 08.05.2007 till realisation and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- also carries interest @ 6% per annum till realisation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of June, 2018.

SL

C.C.No. 191/2009

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT