PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          The facts of this case depict the story of a 74-year old senior citizen, seeking refund of a paltry sum of ₹357/- as differential amount for travel between AC II tier and AC III tier coaches, from the Department of Railways, Government of India, for which he has been dragged to avoidable litigation, upto the level of this Commission.

2.       This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 29.09.2016, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in CD First Appeal No. 893/2008, “The Divisional Manager, East Coast Railway Sambalpur & Ors. versus Goparanjan Dubey”, vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 23.10.2008, passed by the District Forum Sambalpur in consumer complaint No. 36/2008, filed by the present respondent/complainant, allowing the said complaint, was modified.  The District Forum had directed payment of ₹10,000/- as compensation and ₹500/- as litigation cost to the complainant, but the State Commission modified the order in appeal and gave directions to pay a sum of ₹357/- to the complainant towards refund of the differential amount of the ticket and also to pay ₹5,000/- towards compensation and ₹2,000/- as cost of litigation. 

3.       The facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Goparanjan Dubey, a senior citizen, aged 74 years, who is the Chairperson of the Children Welfare Committee, Sambalpur, duly constituted by the State Government of Odisha, booked a confirmed return railway ticket to travel from Sambalpur to Guwahati in Assam by AC II tier class.  The date of onward journey was 19.01.2008 by
Koraput–Howrah express and the return journey was to be made on 25.01.2008 from Guwahati by Kamrup Express.  When the complainant reached the Guwahati Railway station on 25.01.2008 for the return journey, he found an announcement being made by the Railways that AC II tier coach had not been attached to the Kamrup Express that day, and hence, the passengers booked for travel in that class, could get refund from the ticket counter.  As per the complainant, there had been no announcement about the alternative arrangements being made, neither any official of the Department of Railways, was present at the concerned platform to guide the passengers.  A few minutes before the departure of the train when the complainant approached the conductor, he was asked to shift to AC III tier coach and occupy the berth, as per the berth number allotted in the original ticket for AC II tier coach.  According to the complainant, he had booked lower berth as seat No. 37 in AC II tier coach, however, in AC III tier coach, berth no. 37 was a middle berth and it was difficult for a person of his age to have occupied the middle berth.  Even after his request, the conductor refused to allot him a lower berth in AC III tier coach.  However, after much arguments etc., the conductor allotted him a lower berth after 3 hours of journey.  Alleging that he had to undergo a lot of mental agony, physical hardship and inconvenience, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking refund of the differential of railway fare for travel in AC II tier and AC III tier classes and also adequate compensation for mental agony etc. and cost of litigation.

4.       The complaint was resisted by the opposite party (OP) by filing a written version, in which they stated that the night running of some trains in the area of the North East Frontier Railway had been suspended on the eve of the Republic Day due to insurgency threats.  On account of the rescheduling / cancellation of certain trains, the AC-II tier coach could not be attached to Kamrup Express, leaving Guwahati on 25.01.2008, i.e., the train in which the complainant had been booked for travelling.  On 25.01.2008, an announcement was made at the Guwahati Railway Station on public address system that AC-II tier coach would not be available in the said train and hence, the passengers booked for travel in that coach could obtain refund of full amount of their tickets from the ticket counter.  The passengers were also told that those intending to travel by AC-III tier coach, could take the differential amount from the ticket counter.  In the present case, the complainant heard the said announcement as admitted by him in the consumer complaint and opted to travel by AC-III tier coach.  He had sufficient time at his disposal to take the differential amount at Guwahati itself, but he chose not to do so.  It is further stated that as per the refund of fare rules, a passenger who is forced to travel in a lower class for want of accommodation, can get refund of difference of fare within 20 hours of the arrival of the train at the destination of the passenger after production of the ticket, alongwith a certificate of the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE).  However, the complainant did not take the refund of ₹357/- either from the starting station at Guwahati, or the destination station at Sambalpur.  There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Railways; hence, the consumer complaint deserved dismissal. 

5.       The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OP Railways to pay a sum of ₹10,000/- as compensation and ₹5,000/- as cost of litigation.  The District Forum held that the non-attachment of AC-II tier coach with the train Kamrup Express and non-refund of differential amount of fare to the complainant, amounted to deficiency in service on their part.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the OP Railways challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission.  Vide impugned order dated 29.09.2016, the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum and directed the OP Railways to pay a sum of ₹357/- to the complainant towards refund of the differential amount of the ticket and in addition, to pay compensation of ₹5,000/- and ₹2,000/- as litigation cost.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the OP Railways challenged the same by way of present revision petition before this Commission. 

6.       At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the jurisdiction to handle the consumer complaint did not lie with the consumer fora, in view of section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, wherein it had been provided under section 13(1)(b) that the Railway Claims Tribunal had the jurisdiction in respect of claims for refund of fares.  The order passed by the consumer fora below were without jurisdiction and deserved to be set aside on this ground alone.  The learned counsel further stated that the complainant had been found lacking in observing reasonable care and caution, because he failed to obtain the refund of the differential amount at the starting station or the station of his destination.  There were enough persons from the staff of the Railways to guide the passengers.  The learned counsel further stated that since the refund of ₹357/- had not been claimed within 20 hours of the arrival of the train at the station of destination, the refund could not be allowed to the complainant at present.  Since there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the consumer complaint deserved to be dismissed. 

7.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

8.       The first question that merits consideration in the matter is whether the consumer fora had the jurisdiction to handle the consumer complaint, keeping in view the provisions contained in the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.  In this regard, it would be worthwhile to reproduce section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as under:-

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law.—The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

9.       It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provided an additional remedy to the consumers for the settlement of their grievances.  It is a matter of common knowledge that even before the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there were statutory provisions including rules and regulations for taking care of the grievances of the consumers in the respective legislation for the concerned Departments.  With the enactment of a beneficial legislation like the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, an additional remedy has been provided to the consumers to seek redressal of their grievances through the mechanism of the consumer fora.  We are supported in this view in the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “The Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society versus M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs” [AIR 2004 SC 448], and “M.D., Orissa Coop. Housing Corpn. Ltd. vs. K.S. Sudarshan” [Civil Appeal No. 36/2003 decided on 29.04.2009].  It is held, therefore, that the consumer fora do have the jurisdiction to handle the present consumer complaint, even when the provision existed to deal with the cases for refund of fares in the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

10.     The next issue for consideration in the matter is whether the OP Railways were required to provide refund of ₹357/- to the complainant, being the differential amount of fares for travel in AC-II tier class and AC-III tier class.  It is a fact admitted by the OP Railways that they were unable to attach AC-II tier coach with the Kamrup Express, leaving Guwahati on 25.01.2008.  Whether there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Railways for non-attachment of the said coach, or there were legitimate reasons for not doing the same, the passenger who was forced to travel in AC-III tier coach, instead of AC-II tier coach, has a legitimate right to get refund of the differential amount of fares.  It is the case of the OP Railways that they did make announcement to this effect and the passenger could have taken the refund from the starting station, i.e., Guwahati or within 20 hours of the arrival of the train at the destination station.  It is not understood, however, how the Railways can deprive a passenger from the refund of the amount, if he does not come forward to claim the same within 20 hours of the arrival of the train at the destination station.  There could be legitimate reasons for not seeking refund within the said period of 20 hours.  Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner Railways has not been able to give any explanation, if the Railways had any authority to forfeit the said amount, in case a passenger did not come forward to claim the amount within 20 hours.  Getting refund of the said amount of ₹357/- is the legal right of the consumer and the Railways cannot deprive him of this benefit, if he does not come forward to claim the amount within the time limit of 20 hours.  The contention raised by the OP Railways in the grounds of the revision petition alleging lack of care and caution on the part of the passenger, is highly undesirable and indicates a colonial mind-set on the part of the OP Railways.  At best, the OP Railways can ask the passenger to give them reasons, as to why he did not come forward to avail the amount within 20 hours, but they definitely have no right to forfeit the said amount.  The State Commission have, therefore, rightly held that the passenger is entitled to refund of ₹357/- as differential amount of fare for travel between AC-II tier coach and AC-III tier coach. 

11.     The next issue for consideration in the matter is that the complainant had been provided berth no. 37, which was lower berth for travel in AC-II tier coach.  However, when he was provided the berth in AC-III tier coach, he was asked by the TTE to move to berth no. 37 only, which was a middle berth.  Evidently, the complainant being 74-year old, would find it quite uncomfortable to occupy the middle berth.  Despite making requests to the TTE, the passenger was not given the lower berth for about three hours.  Since the seats etc. were available, the TTE should have accommodated the consumer at the very first instance.  The delay in doing the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP Railways.

12.     The District Forum awarded a compensation of ₹10,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service on the part of the OP Railways and ₹5,000/- as cost of litigation.  The OP Railways challenged the said verdict by way of appeal before the State Commission and dragged the complainant to further litigation, although very small amounts of compensation were involved.  Further, while feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the State Commission, the OP Railways have tried to involve the complainant further in litigation before this Commission.  We do not appreciate this tendency on the part of the OP Railways, keeping in view the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs. Khazani” [CA No. 6261 of 2012 dated 04.09.2012], that it was unjust and unfair to drag the consumer to avoidable litigation for proceedings involving meagre amounts.  The OP Railways should, therefore, have desisted from perpetuating the litigation before higher forums. 

13.       Based on the discussion above, we do not find any justifiable reasons to allow the present revision petition, keeping in view the fact that the complainant is a senior citizen of more than 74 years and that he had to undergo a lot of inconvenience, being forced to travel in a lower class apartment for the failure of the OP Railways to provide AC-II tier coach during journey on that day.  The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed in limine and the order of the State Commission is upheld.