Delhi

New Delhi

CC/94/2016

Pawan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Railway ( Northern ) - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC. 94/2016                                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

       Pawan Kumar

        J&K 21, 2^nd  Floor,

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ..……..COMPLAINANT

 

 

VERSUS

 

Indian Railway (Northern)

Through its Zonal Director/Manager

Baroda House, New Delhi-110001

.........OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

  PRESIDENT- ARUN KUMAR ARYA

   ORDER

 

The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is an advocate practicing in the courts of Delhi/New Delhi. The booked tour for Kolkata and purchased retuned ticket for 18/01/2016 in Duronto Express vide PNR no. 634-8234641 from Hawrah to New Delhi from 07/01/2016 from booking counter at Delhi High Court building. The status of the booking was in the waiting list and likely to be confirmed in case the respondents did not have acted/omitted illegally and arbitrarily. On Sunday i.e. 17/01/2016, evening he checked the status and was wait list 7 and the chart was prepared before 18 hours before departure of train from Hawrah though as per the rules of the OP, normally the chart is prepared before 4  hours of the departure. The departure time from Hawrah was 12.45 pm but chart prepared on 17/01/2016 itself is in  gross  violation of the OPs rules. On 17/01/2016 at railway enquiry no. 139 the status of the ticket was still wait list 7. In enquiry from reservation counter no. 46-48 the same position was informed and the chart is prepared in the early morning of 18/01/2018 on enquiry why the  chart was prepared so early i.e. on 17/01/2016 no satisfactory reply was given and the person sitting at enquiry window behaved inhumanly. Then he contacted the station master and he connected to Deputy Manager, Commercial in the early morning on 18/01/2016. He informed that the earlier chart was only provisional chart and the final chart would be prepared 02-03 hours before the departure. His pursuances and grievances were not given heed to which resulted in his physical and mental harassment. His ticket till departure of the train remain at wait list 7. He went for cancellation of wait list ticket and the entire amount of Rs 860/- was deducted and noting was refunded. Following praying has made:-

1. Admit the complaint and issue notice to the respondent;
2. award an exemplary compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- mental agony and torture, harassment, fatigue;
3. award the cost of this complaint in favour of the complainant and against the OP;
4. any other or further orders as may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

 

OP was noticed who contested the complaint besides stating that the entire amount was refunded for unconfirmed ticked has raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction. It is stated that this Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction as also all cause of action arose outside of this Forum’s Jurisdiction. It is stated that there is not deficiency in service on the part of OP. The confirmation of ticket and refund of ticket is the governed under certain rules and nothing against the rules can be done. Both the parties have filed their respective evidence by way of affidavit. Both the parties have filed their final arguments. The Ld. Counsel for OP addressed oral arguments specifically raising the issue of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum on 17/09/2018. None appeared on behalf of complainant and liberty to address arguments by 28/09/2018 was granted to the complainant to address arguments.              None appeared for complainant to address oral arguments today till 2.30 pm.

 

We have given due consideration to the material placed before us and the submissions with relevant provisions of law.

      On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble State Commission of Delhi. In Prem Joshi Vs Jurasik Park Inn, dated 17/10/2017 in F.A. No. 488/2017, the Hon’ble State Commission, has discussed the scope of jurisdiction of the District Forum as defined in Section 11 (2) (a) (b) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, and dealt with the scope of territorial jurisdiction of the Forum. While passing the judgment Hon’ble  State Commission considered all the previous judgements passed by the Commission on the point of territorial jurisdiction. This Forum is bound by the principles laid down recently by Hon’ble State Commission in Prem Joshi’s case holding the binding effect  of  notifications issued by order and in the name of the Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi under the provision of Rule 4 of Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 in respect to the allocation of business amongst the District Forums framed under Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against the above noted order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

 

It has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 that:-

“XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.  In my view, the appropriate course of action in such matters would be to follow the procedure prescribed in Order 7 Rule 10 A of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Though, the aforesaid provision has not been expressly extended to this Commission by Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, the principle underlying the said provision can in appropriate cases, be adopted by this Commission, in order to protect the interest of the consumers, while simultaneously ensuring that no prejudice is caused to the service provider by adopting such a course of action.  The opposite party in these cases has filed its written version on the merits of the complaints.  It has also led evidence on merits.  No prejudice would be caused to the opposite party if the complaints are returned for being presented before the concerned State Commission, with a direction to the State Commission to decide them afresh, taking into consideration, the pleadings, affidavits and the evidence including documentary evidence filed by the parties before this Commission provided an opportunity is given to the parties to lead additional evidence and if filed, such additional evidence is also considered along with the evidence, which was filed before this Commission.  The aforesaid course of action besides ensuring a prompt and expeditious disposal of the complaints by a competent Consumer Forum will also ensure that no prejudice is caused to either party in any manner"

In view of the above discussion, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint as neither the address of OP nor the cause of action arose within the limits of Police Stations falling under the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complaint with annexure is therefore directed to be returned to the complainant with liberty to file before the competent Forum in accordance with law with following particulars in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Tushar Batra & Anr. Vs. M/S Unitech Limited decided on 26/04/2017, Case no.-299 of 2014 .

• Presentation of complaint:-

Before this District Forum on - 02/02/2016

• Date of return of complaint -   28/09/2018

• The name of complainant(s) -   Pawan Kumar

           

Copy   of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  parties  to   the    case    free  of     cost      as   statutorily    required. 

Announced in open Forum on  28/09/2018.

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                           (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                      PRESIDENT

 

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                           (H M VYAS)

      MEMBER                                                                       MEMBER