Delhi

East Delhi

CC/363/2015

SALMAN AHMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIAN RAILWAY - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  363/15

 

Shri Salman Ahmed

S/o Imtyaj Ahmed

R/o R-216/2, Ramesh Park

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                      ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Indian Railways                                                             

Room No. 256 A, Rail Bhavan

Raisina Road, New Delhi- 110 001                                   …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 20.05.2015

Judgement Reserved on : 27.11.2017

Judgement Passed on: 28.11.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Salman Ahmed against     Indian Railways (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant booked 4 tickets from Nihalghar to Delhi on 12.12.2014 for 13.12.2014 vide ticket PNR no. 6136345380 for Rs. 1,766/-.  On 13.12.2014, train came at the station, but door did not open and train left.  In this regard, the complainant lodged the complaint in the complaint book. 

           On 12.02.2015, the complainant received a letter from OP in respect of his complaint, stating that “vki }kjk fugky?kj LVs”ku ij miyC/k ifjon iqfLrdk i`’B u- 9  fnukad 13&12&2014 ij vafdr f”kdk;r ds lEcU/k esa lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 13&12&14 dks xkM+h u- 12391 ds fugky?kj ls tkus ds ckn xkM+h u- 14007 fugky?kj ls 22&47 ij NwVh Fkh ftlls fnYyh rd ;k=k dh tk ldrh FkhA vki vius fVdV [kjkc gksus ds fy, Lo;a mÙkjnk;h gSaA”

          It was further stated that the complainant visited at the office of OP and asked that if there was any rule in railway that they can travel in any train in that situation, but the officer of OP clearly denied.  The complainant made many calls to the office of OP, but did not get any satisfactory reply,  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund Rs. 1766/-; compensation of Rs. 80,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs. 3,000/- cost of litigation.    

3.       Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP.  No reply was filed on their behalf, hence they were proceeded ex-parte. 

4.         Ex-parte evidence was filed on behalf of the complainant where he has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.

6.       We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. The arguments which have been advanced on behalf of OP have been that the complaint does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.  He has stated that the complainant was to approach the Railway Claims Tribunal. He has further argued that there has been no evidence to show that the complainant reached at the railway station in time. 

          On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for complainant have argued that the complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as it was an additional remedy.  He has further argued that there was enough material to show that the complainant reached at the railway station in time.

          To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of the complainant.  The first and foremost argument which has been taken is with regard to the jurisdiction under the Act.  No doubt, that the Railway Claims Tribunal have been created under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, but the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, therefore, there is no force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel for OP that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. 

          With regards to the evidence on record, it is noticed that there is nothing on record to show that the complainant reached at the railway station in time.  His simple version that he reached at the railway station in time cannot be accepted. 

          In the absence of any other evidence on record, the testimony of the complainant cannot be relied upon.  That being so, the case of the complainant does not prove the deficiency on the part of Indian Railways.  Thus, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President