Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 348.
Instituted on : 01.08.2018.
Decided on : 10.07.2019.
Anil Dua age 38 years, s/o Sh. Satpaul Dua R/o H.No.722/22, Jhang Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Indian Railway, North Zone, Baroda House, New Delhi through its G.M.
- Indian Railway, Rohtak Railway Station, Rohtak through its Station Master.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Amit Dhaka, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.R.Vats, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant alongwith Kopila, Isth, Shristhi had visited Vaishno Devi(J & K) and for return journey the complainant has booked the ticket for A.C. compartment for 04.06.2018 in Train no.16318/HIMKSAGAR Express under general category from Katra to Rohtak Junction as there was very hot and for A.C. compartment, the complainant had paid extra charges. That after starting his journey from Katra Railway Station, he had noticed that the A.C of the compartment was not working. That complainant pulled the chain and reported the matter to the concerned officers who gave in writing that the A.C. of the compartment was not working. That complainant has also reported the matter to customer care Indian Railway and complaint no.W/NR/FZR/000387354 was registered. That due to non-working of A.C., the complainant and his family members faced a great problem because of heavy summer season. They could not sleep and have to face difficulties and have been harassed by the opposite parties by not providing the good services even after getting extra amount from the complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the ticket amount alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.450000/- on account of causing mental pain, damages, suffering and deficiency in service and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses as explained in the relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties filed their reply and has submitted in their preliminary objections that it is not a consumer dispute, Hon’ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complainant and that as per rule due refund of difference of fare of AC and non-AC class is duly provided at the end of journey on production of ticket and certificate. This is not a case of complainant that refund was denied. That there was option of travelling by some other train or taking full refund of ticket was available with the complainant but the same were not exercised by the complainant. On merits, it is submitted that complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on dated 30.01.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on dated 19.04.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case, the respondent counsel argued that this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because no cause of action had arisen in the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is also argued that the complainant should approach the Railway Claim Tribunal for his grievances and that complainant should cancel the booking or to obtain the difference of A.C. and Non-AC ticket.
7. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. The complainant has placed on record document Ex.C1, a certificate issued by the TTE, Railway Authority, that the passenger is entitled for refund of ticket amount AC-II of ticket no.A-1/31,32,33 & 34. Ex.C2 is the ticket issued by the respondent. Ex.C3/JN-C is the report issued by the technician of train no.16318SVDK. Ex.C4 is the Aadhar Card of complainant and photocopy of document JN-A is the SMS of IRCRIS, JN-B is the rules of railway. On the other hand, opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Sh. Ashish Roy DCM/SS, DRM Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi and closed his evidence.
8. Regarding the first objection of territorial jurisdiction, it is observed that the complainant has booked the ticket through agent from Rohtak and this fact is also mentioned by the complainant in para no.10 of his complaint and is also proved from the ticket Ex.C2, whereby the agent name is Sanjay, City Travel agency having email ID: City Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case as the facts of the present case are different. The other law cited by ld. counsel for the respondent is Revision Petition No.4465 of 2014 decided on 09.02.2016, of Hon’ble National commission in case titled as Northern Railway Vs. Dr.N.K.Singla in which the Hon’ble National Commission has decided about the question regarding refund of excess charges and the complaint was dismissed but the facts of the present case are different from the above mentioned authority because in the present case the complainant has demanded compensation of Rs.450000/- on account of mental pain and damages, suffering, deficiency in service and Rs.11000/- as litigation expense. Hence the authority cited above is not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The complainant started his journey from Katra to Rohtak in train No.16138 SVDK on dated 04.06.2018 and the A.C. of compartment no.13088 was not working. This fact has been proved through the report of technician, which is placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C3/JN-C. Regarding this fact, the complainant also made a complaint to the incharge of the train and he also issued a certificate Ex.C1 and through this certificate the train incharge made a note in the certificate that the complainant, having seat no.A1/31,32,33, 34 is entitled for refund. But as per the complainant, if he cancelled the ticket, he was unable to perform the journey. So he could not cancel the ticket. Regarding the working of A.C., he also made a complaint before the IRCRIS on the same day. To prove this fact, he has placed on record a photocopy of SMS. In this document, the complaint number is also mentioned.
10. After perusal of the documents, we came to the conclusion that the complainant and his family members could not enjoy the journey of A.C. coach from Katra to Rohtak because the window of A.C. coach are fixed and passengers can not open the same. Whereas, the temperature in the month of June is too high that one cannot travel without A.C. in a packed compartment. Meaning thereby, the complainant and his family members suffered a huge discomfort, harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As the complainant has performed the full journey, so he is not entitled for refund of ticket amount and is only entitled for compensation on account of harassment.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.30000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite party no.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.07.2019.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
10.07.2019.
...................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
