Delhi

North

CC/60/2018

VISHAL ARUN MISHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.:60/2018

 

Sh. Vishal Arun Mishra

Seat No.161, Gajanand Block,

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-11054

 

Residing at

H2-401, Shubhdam Apr.

Rajendra Nagar, Block-2,

Sector-2, Ghaziabad,

Uttar Pradesh.                                                                                             …                               Complainant

 

                                                                                                Vs

Northern Railways,

Baroda House, New Delhi-110001

Through its General Manager,

                                                                                                                     …                Opposite Party No.1

 

Public Relations Office,

Northern Railways,

NCDR Building,

State Entry Road,

New Delhi-110006                                                                                     …                Opposite Party No.2

                                                                             ORDER

               09/8/2023

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

(1)          The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that on 13.11.2017, Complainant with his two cousins i.e. Ruchi (female) and Abhishek (male), got reserved tickets from reservation counter in Tis Hazari Court premises for journey on 19.11.2017 in the train Jammu Ajmer Express No.12414 vide PNR No.281-9691423 in class-2S for journey from Delhi to Bandikui (Rajasthan) to pay a religious visit to Mehndipur Balaji. On next day, Complainant has also got booked/reserved another ticket on 14.11.2017, from the same train vide PNR No.271-9737874, in Class-2S for the same date i.e.19.11.2017 for the same journey. On 19.11.2017 at about 03:30 AM, Complainant alongwith other reached at the Delhi Railway Station (DLI), for boarding the train and found that the above said train No.12414 Jammu Ajmer Express has been cancelled without any prior information from the OPs. The Complainant and his cousin were, therefore, compelled to move to the destination by arranging a private vehicle. It is further stated by the complainant that on way to his destination, the Complainant tried to get cancelled the above said tickets at Mathura Junction but the officials of Mathura station refused to get the said ticket cancelled and directed the Complainant to get it cancelled from where it was reserved/booked. On next day i.e. 20.11.2017, Complainant went to reservation counter of Tis Hazari Court premises to get the tickets cancelled but the officials of the counter refused to do so and directed the Complainant to go at Delhi Railway Station (Purani Delhi) for the same. Complainant went to the Delhi Railway Station (Purani Delhi) for the cancellation of the same, then the concerned officials refused to cancel the tickets and also refused to refund the money, as per rules of railways. It has also been alleged that the Complainant alongwith his cousins has suffered physical inconvenience and great mental agony due to inconvenience in the car during the course of travelling. The Opposite Parties have not provided good service to Complainant nor Opposite Parties gave a prior information to Complainant on telephone or by any other means. He came to know about cancellation of train only on reaching the station in the night to board the station. It has been prayed that the Opposite parties also required to cancel the above said tickets and to return the amount of Rs.330/- and Rs.110/- respectively as per rules. It has further been prayed by the Complainant to:

1. direct the OPs to compensate the Complainant for the actual loss and compensatory/ damages loss (physical and mental agony charges) in favour of Complainant.
2. direct the OPs to give Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges in favour of Complainant.
3. any other/ further relief may also be granted in favour of the Complainants and against the OP which may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

 

2.           Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response the OPs have filed reply jointly stating that complaint filed by the Complainant is totally misconceived, bad and is liable to be dismissed with costs for indulging in filing of such frivolous, untrue and baseless complaints against the OPs. It is further contended that as per Sections 13 and 15 the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the jurisdiction of the commission as established under the Consumer Protection Act is barred. Only the Railways Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain any claim petition as per Sections 13, 15 and 28 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and this commission does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain claim for refund of fare, freight and part thereof. It has further been contended that as per Railway Tariff Rules No. 115, "the Railway Administration did not guarantees the arrival and departure of trains at the time specified in the time tables nor will they acceptable for any loss or inconvenience which may arise to passenger from delays or detention to themselves or their luggage''.

3.            Regarding allegations of the cancellation of the train without any intimation to the complainant, the OPs have clarified that as per "Train Intermediate Station Status Report" of train No.12414 dated 19.11.2017, DL to BKI was not cancelled but due to operational difficulties (mega power and traffic block for repair), it reached to destination via diverted route keeping in view the safety of the passengers and did not touch Delhi Railway Station. It is further stated that the Railways authorities can take decision in the larger interest/ safety of the passengers. In case of diversion/ cancellation of train, passengers is required to file claim for refund of fare within prescribed time limit to the Railways failing which claim is not admitted by the system as per rules. It is important to note here that two windows are always open (24 hours) at the Old Delhi Railways Station, Delhi and the Complainant could have cancelled his tickets and got refund at Delhi Railway Station (Purani Delhi) on 19.11.2017. In this case, Claimant/ passengers failed to surrender his tickets within prescribed time, as a result, system denied refund against the tickets as per rule. Thus, Complainant is neither entitled for refund of fare, costs and nor for compensation as demanded in view of above submissions.

4.           Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OPs and it has been observed that:-

1. It is not in dispute that the train, which was to be boarded by the Complainant, reached to destination via diverted route and did not touch Delhi Railway Station.
2. The complainant along with his relatives could not board the train due to this reason.
3. Since the complainant had planned a religious visit to the Mehndipur Balaji, he performed his further journey by arranging a private car but he has not filed any documentary evidence to prove the amount spent for booking of the private car for the journey.
4. The OPs have contended that as per Sections 13 and 15 the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the jurisdiction of the commission as established under the Consumer Protection Act is barred. Only the Railways Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain any claim petition as per Sections 13, 15 and 28 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and this commission does not have jurisdiction to try and entertain claim for refund of fare, freight and part thereof.

In this context, it is clarified that the Complainant is covered in the category of Consumer and the transportation of passengers by the Railway Administration falls within the definition of service as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. As such, this consumer commission is fully competent to adjudicate this consumer dispute.

5. The OPs have also contended that that as per Railway Tariff Rules No. 115, "the Railway Administration did not guarantees the arrival and departure of trains at the time specified in the time tables nor will they acceptable for any loss or inconvenience which may arise to passenger from delays or detention to themselves or their luggage''.

With regard to above contention of OPs, the judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06/09/2021 in SLP(C) No. 13288 of 2021 in the matter of Northern Western Railway & Anr. versus Sanjay Shukla is relevant in the matter wherein it has been observed that “ every passenger’s time is precious. These are the days of competition and accountability. If the public transportation has to survive and compete with private players, they have to improve the system and their working culture. Citizen/passengers cannot be at the mercy of the authorities/administrations. Somebody has to accept the responsibility.”

5.            In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in this case and the complainant has suffered directly due to this deficiency in service in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.

6.           Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OPs to refund Rs.440/-(Rupees four Hundred forty only), jointly and severally, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 19-11-2017 till the date of the payment. Besides, the OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only), jointly and severally, as compensation to the Complainant, for the mental pain, agony and harassment. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OPs to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

7.            Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                      DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR           

Member                                                                         President       

                                            DCDRC-1 (North)                                                              DCDRC-1 (North)