DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
UDYOG SADAN, C-22 & 23, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA
(BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL) : NEW DELHI – 110016.
Case No. 615/13
Sh. Laliteshwar Prasad Gupta
Ex. Sr. Warrant Officer,
Air Force Technical Group-1,
House No.-8C, Flat No. 10,
Raju Park, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Khanpur Devli Road, New Delhi-62 - Complainant
Vs
Indian Railway
Through:- Sr. Deputy General Manager,
Northern Railway Division
Ist Floor, Anne Buldg.
- House, New Delhi - Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 23.12.2013 Date of decision: 06.04.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
In short, the case of the complainant is that he had booked two e-tickets in AC 3tier for himself and his wife through internet on 12.6.2013 for the journey to be undertaken on 11.7.2013 from Gaya to New Delhi in the train named Mahabodhi Express bearing train No. 12307 after payment of Rs. 2220/-. They were allotted berth Nos. 27 and 29 in AB1 coach. On the date of journey i.e. 11.7.2013 when the complainant and his wife boarded the train in AB1 coach, the TTE of OP came to check the tickets and stated that their reservation had been changed and the berth of the complainant had been shifted to berth no. 70 in coach no. B1 3tier whereas the berth of his wife had been downgraded from AC 3 tier to sleeper class S1-9. The complainant vehemently objected such a change in reservation and requested the TTE S.P. Sharma of OP to accommodate his wife in the same coach in which his berth had been allotted but the TTE of OP bluntly refused to listen to the request of the complainant and told them to go to their respective changed berths. Feeling great discomfort to himself and his wife (both said to be cardiac and servical patients) they had to face lot of discomfort and problem due to such irresponsible and unprofessional conduct of the OP. Being aggrieved and unsatisfied with the reply of the OP and claiming deficiency in service they have approached this forum for the following reliefs:
- Direct the opposite party to refund the cost of 1 ticket of Rs. 1120/- to the complainant.
- Direct the Opposite party to pay the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony, mental torture, harassment, financial loss etc. to the complainant.
- Direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards the litigation cost and miscellaneous expenses to the complainant.
OP in the written statement has refuted the complaint of the complainant taking shelter of Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and reiterating that sole jurisdiction to try the complaint/claim would be the Railway Claim Tribunal. It is stated that the Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No.-25, part-1, Section 306 prescribes that “Railways Administration do not guarantee reserved accommodation whether seats, berths, compartments, coaches or carriages by any particular train and will admit no claim for compensation for inconvenience, loss or extra expenses due to such accommodation not being provided or attached to trains by which asked for” and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation from opposite party in the light of above mentioned rules. OP has further contested the complaint on the twin grounds that the complainant has not sent any legal notice under Section 79/80 of CPC and also the cause of action arose at Gaya junction, Bihar which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum.
Complaint has filed a rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Anand Prakash, DCM, office at DRM office, Northern Railways, New Delhi has been filed on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also carefully considered the material on record.
Now, we straightway formulate the issues whether the complaint is tenable and, if so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
Admittedly, the complainant was allotted berth Nos. 27 & 29 in respect of himself and his wife respectively in AC 3tier bearing train No. 12397 for performing the journey from Gaya to New Delhi on 11.7.2013 as per Ex. CE-A. However, on boarding the train, the berth of complainant was shifted to berth No. 70 in coach No. B-I and the berth of his wife was not only changed but downgraded from AC-3tier to Sleeper class SI-9. This eleventh hour change of the berth number of the complainant and down gradation of the berth of his wife from AC 3tier to Sleeper class who are said to be suffering from cardiac and servical problem definitely must have added to the agony and trauma of the complainant without prior intimation.
Stand taken by the OP to the effect that the complainant has not invoked the Railway Claims Tribunal and also the unilateral clause in Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No.-25, part-I, Section 306 do not come to the rescue of the OP. To our mind Section 306 does not apply to the present case. It applies to cases where reservations do not exist. If a person has already got his/her tickets/berths/reserved his/her tickets/berths cannot be changed or downgraded at the time of journey by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 306. If such an interpretation is given to Section 306 it would certainly frustrate the very purpose of getting one’s seats reserved/confirmed in advance. In the present case, by making the change in the allotment of the berths of the complainant and his wife they were forced to travel in two different coaches against all canons of social justice, morality and social custom. As regards territorial jurisdiction pointed out by the OP, the same is not tenable since booking was done by the complainant through internet which has reduced the territorial jurisdiction to a great extent and place of log-in in the internet also confers the jurisdiction. Moreover, the journey had to terminate at New Delhi. As regards invoking Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987, such a plea is barred by Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. We hold the OP guilty of gross deficiency in service.
We allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards physical harassment and mental agony undergone at the behest of OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of copy of this order till the actual payment.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 6.4.2016
Case No. 615/13
6.4.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards physical harassment and mental agony undergone at the behest of OP along with cost of litigation within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of receipt of copy of this order till the actual payment. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
