Delhi

North East

CC/132/2018

L.G. Dass, Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Railwasys - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jan 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.  132/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri L.G. Dass S/o Late Shri Anand Prakash R/o R-27, RPS, DDA Flats Mansoravar Park, Shahdara Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	Indian Railways Through The Chairman of Railway Board Rail Bhawan New Delhi-110001	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

10.07.2018 09.01.2020 09.01.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Grievance of the complainant against the OP in the present complaint is that he had booked online railway ticket for himself on 24.05.2018 on OP’s web portal for travel in AC-III tier train number 15708 ASR KIR Express for date of travel 25.05.2018 from Jalandhar to Ambala on cash payment of Rs. 450/- and was allotted Berth no. 9 LB in B-1 coach in the said train vide PNR no. 2508820598 in the online ticket issued by OP but on the date of travel when the complainant boarded the said train at Jalandhar Railway Station, he was shocked to see that a lady was sleeping on the aforesaid berth allotted to him and on being asked to vacate the same, she insulted the complainant. After much insistence, the lady showed two tickets to complainant, one being a running ticket of Rs. 115/- from Amritsar to Kurukshetra and an excess fare ticket receipt of  Rs. 420/- issued by OP for allotting the same berth and coach which was already allotted to the complainant, thereby OP converting and unreserved ticket in to a reserved ticket in favour of lady for journey to be undertaken by her from Amritsar to Ambala. In these peculiar circumstances, the complainant had no option but to accommodate the lady and allow her to use his berth which caused him physical and mental pain during the entire five hours journey from Jalandhar to Ambala and OP’s coach attendant even refused to provide complaint book to the complainant. On complainant’s request, the lady on disembarking from the train handed over the tickets in question to the complainant. Therefore feeling aggrieved with unfair trade practice deficiency of service on the part of OP for having sold the same berth to two persons and then not even providing the complaint book to the complainant where he could register his complaint to this effect, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OP praying for issuance of direction against OP to refund Rs. 450/- towards cost of ticket and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards and mental and physical harassment and Rs. 11,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Complainant has attached copy of e-ticket/electronic reservation slip for confirmed ticket issue to the complainant for the berth in question and copy of excess fare ticket of Rs. 450/- and running ticket no. A38797190 of Rs. 115/- issued to the lady for the same berth as already allotted t the complainant.
3. Notice was issued to the OP on 24.07.2018 for appearance no 27.08.2018 on which date OP’s Inspector (Legal) appeared and was handed over complete set of paper book of complaint with annexure for filing written statement. However, OP failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period of 45 days as provide under the act and therefore its right to file the same was closed u/s 13(1)(a) vide order dated 17.11.2018.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were filed by the complainant in reassertion of his grievance against OP and exhibited the documents relied upon / filed along with the complaint.
5. To the oral objections taken by OP for non maintainability of complaint on grounds of territorial jurisdiction, comprehensive order dated 02.07.2019 was passed by this Forum dismissing the same in view of right of defence closed qua OP and OP having failed to prefer any application u/s 11(2) of the Act despite being in receipt of the complaint since August 2018 in view of settled proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by Hon'ble National Commission.
6. Written arguments were filed by both parties. Complainant in his written arguments reasserted the case made out against the OP. in the written arguments filed by OP, the factum of booking of ticket by complainant and having been allotted the berth in question was admitted. However, OP took the objection of the complaint outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act and falling within Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987 pertaining to refund claims. Further, OP argued that the nomenclature of OP in memo of parties is incorrect and disputed the complaint on merits by urging that as per its preliminary investigation, the seat in  question was  vacant from Amritsar to Ambala therefore the same was allotted to the lady passenger and even otherwise the journey from Jalandhar to Ambala which was undertaken by complainant was for three and a half hours only and the lower berth was to be used as sitting berth only between 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM on which three passengers are allowed to sit whereas in the present case there were only two passengers and there was no deficiency of service or violation of rule and prayed of dismissal of complaint u/s 26 of the CPA.
7. We have heard the arguments addressed by both sides and have given our anxious consideration to the material placed before us.
8. Undisputedly, the berth no. 9 in coach B-1 in the train no. 15708 was allotted to the complainant via e-ticket and also to a lady passenger (unnamed) by OP as can be ascertained from the documents. No defence in rebuttal was filed about the same by the OP despite having been accorded sufficient time as stipulated under the legislative mandate of 45 days provided under the Act. The allotting of the same berth by OP as already allotted to the complainant wrongfully to another passenger is indeed deficiency of service in our considered view. We are guided by the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in V.K. Upadhyay Vs. General Manager, Central Railways (1997) 5 CTJ 822 (NC) wherein the Hon'ble National Commission held that such a dispute did not come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal (as was contrarily held by State Commission) and upheld order of District Forum which had allowed the complaint and granted compensation against railways for wrongfully allotting berth reserved for the complainant to others. We therefore allow the present complaint and direct OP to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for mental and physical harassment inclusive of litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.   File be consigned to record room.
11.   Announced on 09.01.2020              

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member