BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 28th day of April 2018
Filed on : 03-05-2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
CC.No.173/2017
Between
P. Gopinathan, : Complainant
Flat No. 12B. Katticaren JMJ (party-in-person)
Residency, KK Padmanabhan
road, Ernakulam North-682 018.
And
1. Senior Divisional Commercial : Opposite parties
Manager (Refunds), (By Adv. Millu Dandapani)
Southern Railways, Thycadu,
Trivandrum.
2. The Chief Reservation
Supervisor, Indian Railways,
Ernakulam Junction.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant, a retired bank manager, reserved 4 air-conditioned railway tickets from Jaipur to Jodhpur in train No. 14853 which was supposed to leave from Jaipur at 12.20 p.m. on 05-02-2017. The complainant along with his family reached Jaipur airport at 10 a.m. on 05-02-2017 and reached the railway station at 11.30 a.m. The display at the railway station showed that the train was running 14 hrs late . As the programme of the complainant was to visit places like Jaisalmer nagar, Jodhpur etc. He had made advance reservation for their stay. The complainant could not therefore afford to wait for the late running train . Therefore the complainant approached the railway authority for a refund. However, there was no response from the railway authorities. The complainant and family therefore proceeded to Jodpur by availing services of a taxi paying Rs. 5,000/- as taxi charges. When the complainant reached at Ernakulum on 15-02-2017 he preferred a complaint at Ernakulam for refund of the ticket on 17-02-2017. As the complainant purchased ticket from Ernakulum the complainant preferred the claim for refund of the ticket within 30 days from the scheduled date of departure of the train. The complainant therefore prays for a refund of Rs. 2,500/- on account of ticket fare and Rs. 5,000/- to him towards taxi fare, from the opposite parties.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties and opposite parties Railways appeared and contested the matter by filing a version contending inter-alia as follows:
3. The complaint is not maintainable as he is not a consumer . As per the notification of Government of India, Ministry of Railways dated 11/2015 (GSR (E) ) no cancellation charges or clerkage charge shall be levied and full fair shall be refunded to all passengers holding reserved, RAC, and wait listed tickets when the journey is not undertaken due to late running of the train by more than 3 hrs if the scheduled departure of the train from the station commencing journey subject to the condition that the ticket is surrendered up to the actual departure of the train. In the same notification in para 23 it is prescribed that an application or refund of passenger reservation system counter tickets, in other circumstances, other than those specified in these rules a TDR (Ticket Deposit Receipt) shall be issued to the passenger and the passenger may apply for the refund of fare within 10 days from the date of commencement of journey to the chief commercial manager (refunds) of the railway administration under whose jurisdiction the TDR issuing station comes, enclosing the original TDR. In the instant case, the application for refund from the complainant was received on 21-02-2017 and that too without a TDR . The complainant did not approach the journey commencing station for refund. The complainant did not approach any official at Jodpur Railway Station. The complainant did not approach the opposite party within the time frame and with proper records. The claim of the complainant is barred by the principle of estopel. The complaint is ill motivated and is liable to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration.
- Did the complainant prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
5. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1, the complainant and Exbts. A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence, but marked Exbt. B1 to B3 documents.
6. Heard both sides.
7. Issue No. i. The complainant had booked a railway ticket in 3rd AC to travel from Jaipur to Jodhpur and Exbt. A1 is the ticket therefore. Exbt. A3 is a confirmed flight ticket showing that the complainant reached Jaipur on 05-02-2017 at 8.50 a.m. Exbt. A6 is the complaint filed by the complainant before the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager( Refund ) on 17-02-2016. Exbt. A1 and A2 pertains to the tickets issued by the opposite party for travelling from Jaipur to Jodpur.. The refund application was filed before the officer of the opposite party at Trivandrum. There is nothing in evidence to show that he booked the ticket from Ernakulam. The complainant filed this complaint before the Forum without any territorial jurisdiction.
8. The learned counsel for the Railways argued that in view of rule 115 of the India Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No. 25, the Railways cannot be saddled with any liability for delay either in arrival or departure of its trains at the times specified in the time table and therefore this argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance on 2 decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1993 (2) CPJ 214 and Union of India Vs. M. Adaikalam in RP No. 125/1992 decided on 15-04-1993 wherein while interpreting Rule 401.7 of the said Tariff , it has been held that since railways do not guarantee the timely running of the special trains, there could not be any question of deficiency in service on their part in running such a train. Rule 115 specifically provides in clear terms that Railways do not guarantee the arrival or departure of the trains at the times specified in the time table, nor will they be accountable for any loss or inconvenience, which may arise to passengers from delays or detention to themselves or their luggage. In the above circumstance, we find that the issue No. (i) is against the complainant.
9. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i. against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of April 2018
`
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of Railway ticket
A2 : Copy of Railway ticket
A3 : Booking details
A3(2) : Guest Details
A4 : True copy of proforma
A5 : Copy of confirmation
A6 : Copy of letter dt. 17-02-2016
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : True copy of notification
dt. -11-2015
B2 : True copy of letter dt. 17-02-2016
B3 : True copy of letter dt. 13-04-2017
Depositions
PW1 : Shri. P. Gopinathan
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
