Delhi

North East

CC/236/2015

L.G. Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Railways - Opp.Party(s)

10 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.236/15

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. L.G Dass R-2, Rita Block, Main Market, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092		Complainant
		Versus
		Indian Railways (Through the Chairman of Railways Board) Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road New Delhi-110001		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		08.07.15 13.10.22 10.01.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

                                                                    ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 21.03.14 the Complainant travelled to Jaisalmer from Delhi in Train No. 14659 vide PNR No.2828569847. The Complainant paid an amount of   Rs. 1,505/- for the ticket to travel. The seat no. 23 was allotted to the Complainant in AC-II Tier Coach No.A-1. This was a window side lower seat. The said train left Delhi at around 5:30 p.m. and reached Jaisalmer on the next day at about 10:30 a.m. The Complainant spent 17-18 hours in the train. The berth which was allotted to the Complainant was not comfortable due to the damage in the joints of two parts of the back rest of the opposite seats. The grievance of the Complainant is that he could not sleep and even he could not properly rest in the said berth. He brought this fact regarding the damage in the seat to the notice of Travelling Ticket Examiner and asked him to change his seat but nothing was done.  The Complainant made a written complaint in the Complaint Book at Old Delhi Railway Station. Due to the damage/broken seat the Complainant was uncomfortable during the entire journey. Vide letter dated 13.05.14 he was intimated that his complaint dated 21.03.14 had been sent to the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) complaint cell at Firozpur (FZP) Northern Railway but no response has been received by the Complainant from the said office. It is the case of the Complainant that there was a deficiency in service which caused mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for directing the Opposite Party to pay him a sum of Rs. 1,505/- towards the cost of the ticket, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment and a sum of Rs. 11,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

 Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement.  It is stated by the Opposite Party that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case and the jurisdiction lies with the Railway Claims Tribunal u/s 13 (1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is alleged that Complainant has filed this complaint to harass and extract money from the Opposite Party. It is alleged that the Complainant has no lucus standi to file the complaint and the Complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. On merits the Opposite Party has denied the allegations of the Complainant. It is stated that in case the Complainant had any grievance regarding the seat he should have  deboarded the train. It is stated that the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. The Complainant has filed the copy of the railway ticket, photograph of the seat no.23 (which was allotted to him), copy of his complaint dated 21.03.14 and copy of letter dated 13.05.14 send to him by the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) Jaipur.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Siya Ram Meena, ACM/RF in Northern Railway, New Delhi, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he had travelled to Jaisalmer from Delhi on 21.03.14  in Train No. 14659. His case is that the berth which was allotted to him was having some problem and due to this he could not sleep during the journey of 17-18 hours nor he could have rest during the journey. In order to substantiate his case, he has filed his affidavit. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that this Forum does not have any jurisdiction to try the case as the jurisdiction to try the matter lies with the Railway Claims Tribunal u/s 13 (1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It is also the case of Opposite Party that the allegations leveled by the Complainant are false.
7. The first thing which is to be seen is that whether this Forum has the jurisdiction to try the case. The Complainant has relied upon the judgment dated 05.05.2011 passed by NCDRC in Revision Petition No. 1725 of 2009 in the case of Union of India vs. Savitaben Sumanbhai Patel & Ors. wherein it was held as under:

“It is thus clear from the above that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides additional remedy to the consumer and as such the consumer fora are competent to entertain claims covered and filed under the relevant section of the Railways Act, 1989/Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987”.

 

8. Therefore, in view of the above judgment it is clear that this Forum has jurisdiction to try the case.

 

9. The next question is that whether the berth No.23 which was allotted to the Complainant was faulty. The Complainant has filed his affidavit wherein he has supported this allegation. He has also filed the photos of the said berth. The Complainant has made a complaint in the Complaint Book. On the other hand, the Opposite Party did not lead any evidence to show that the berth allotted to the Complainant was proper. It is also important to note that the Opposite Party in it’s written statement has not specifically alleged that the berth allotted to the Complainant was proper and was not faulty.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that that Complainant has proved its case. The complaint is allowed, a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- in total is awarded to the Complainant which shall be paid by the Opposite Party within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The said amount shall carry an interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
11. Order announced on 10.01.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President