BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No.52 of 2015 Date of Institution: 02.02.2015
Date of Decision: 06.07.2015
Vishal Arora, Aged 35 years, Son of Bhagat Ram Arora, Resident of House No.36, Preet Nagar, Ferozepur City.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. Indian Railways through its Divisional Railways Manager (DRM), Near Ferozepur Cantt Railway Station, Ferozepur Cantt.
2. Concerned TTE of the Indian Railways, who was on duty in the compartment named as “S3” in Punjab Mail on 28.6.2014 from New Delhi to Ferozepur Cantt.
3. Concerned TTE of the Indian Railways, who was on duty in the compartment named as “B4” in Punjab Mail on 28.6.2014 from New Delhi to Ferozepur Cantt.
........ Opposite parties
C.C. No.52 of 2015 //2//
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Harish Chawla, Advocate.
For opposite party Nos.1 & 2 : Sh. K.D.S Syal, Advocate.
For opposite party No.3. : Sh. Bipan Kumar Wadhawan, Advocate.
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that on 20.06.2014, the complainant booked a railway E-ticket with the opposite party at Ferozepur for traveling on 28.06.2014 in train named as Punjab Mail in Sleeper Class. PNR number was 8125334275 and the booking status of the complainant was confirmed and he was
C.C. No.52 of 2015 //3//
allotted seat/berth No.40 in compartment “S3”. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant boarded the train on 28.6.2014 in the night. The complainant was sleeping at his confirmed seat/berth No.40 in Compartment “S3” allotted to him in the ticket. The TTE of the opposite party came to the complainant and asked the complainant to show his ticket. The complainant showed his ticket to the TTE and he told the complainant that his seat/berth No.40 in “S3” compartment has been cancelled and the same has been allotted to some other person. The complainant requested the TTE that his confirmation status regarding the allotment of said seat to him was clearly mentioned in the ticket. But the TTE did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and forced the complainant to leave the seat/berth. The said TTE suggested the complainant that there was no other seat available in the sleeper class and asked him to go and meet the TTE of the Class-Third AC(3A) in compartment “B4” on the next station and asked the complainant to give his reference and wrote on the ticket of the complainant “40” “Yes” and signed the same. The complainant entered compartment “B4” and met the TTE of “B4”, who demanded from the complainant an extra sum of Rs.650/- for the said seat in addition to the sum of Rs.251.24 already charged for his confirmed ticket. The complainant enquired about the said sum from the TTE of “B4” compartment, who replied that a sum of Rs.200/- was to be equally distributed between him and the
C.C. No.52 of 2015 //4//
TTE of “S3” compartment by whose reference the complainant was being given a seat and a sum of Rs.450/- was the difference of ticket between the sleeper class and class-Third AC (3A). The complainant again asked the TTE that the difference rate of the sleeper class and class-Third AC (3A) is of Rs.376/-, who replied that the ticket was booked by the complainant on 20.06.2014 by paying the railway fare for travelling on 28.06.2014 and the fare was revised by the Indian Railway after 20.06.2014. As such, he was charging an extra amount of Rs.74/- on the revised rates of railway fare. He further asked the complainant to pay him a sum of Rs.200/- as bribe for allotting the said seat or the complainant will be removed from the train on the next station due to which the complainant had to pay the same. After receiving from the complainant a sum of Rs.650/-, the TTE of compartment “B4” wrote in his handwriting the seat allotted as seat/berth No.57 in compartment “B4”. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the price of ticket amounting to Rs.251.24/- and Rs.450/- and Rs.200/- charged as bribe from the complainant, totaling Rs.901.24. Further a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and inconvenience, Rs.39,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- as
C.C. No.52 of 2015 //5//
litigation expenses. The complainant has further prayed that the departmental enquiry against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 be ordered to be initiated.
2. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their joint written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the alleged incident was happened with the complainant on 28.06.2014, but the complainant filed the present complaint on 02.02.2015 and he kept mum for such a long period and now he filed the present complaint only to harass the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 never forced the complainant to leave his seat. Infact the complainant himself contacted opposite party No.2 for upgrading his ticket to AC coach and opposite party No.2 told him that he was not able to upgrade his ticket as he was TTE of Sleeper Class only. Thereafter, the complainant went to meet opposite party No.3 and after that the complainant did not return back to his seat during his journey. The duty of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 was on different coaches. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. In his written reply, opposite party No.3 has pleaded that no complaint was lodged at train to Captain of Running Train at the time of alleged occurrence. Opposite party No.3 was not incharge of S3 compartment. The story
C.C. No.52 of 2015 //6//
made by the complainant is concocted one only to make a ground to file the instant complaint. No excess fare, as alleged by the complainant, has been received by opposite party No.3, rather the receipt of excess fare ticket signed by the complainant amounting to Rs.450/- was issued to the complainant. No written complaint was filed at Station Ferozepur Head Quarter. Rest of the averments of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
4. The complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 & 2 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1 & 2/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 & 2. Similarly, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.
6. So far as objection raised by opposite party Nos.1 and 2 that the alleged incident was happened with the complainant on 28.06.2014, but the complainant filed the present complaint only on 02.02.2015 and he kept mum for such a long period is concerned, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection
C.C. No.52 of 2015 //7//
Act, 1986, a complaint is to be filed within a period of two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. In the present complaint, as per allegations of the complainant, cause of action had arisen to him on 28.06.2014, when he travelled in the train and suffered on account of alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant on 02.02.2015 is well within the period of limitation and non-filing of the present complaint immediately after the alleged occurrence has no adverse effect on the merits of this case.
7. The grievance of the complainant is that on 20.06.2014, he had booked a Railway E-ticket Ex.C-2 with opposite party No.1 for travelling on 28.06.2014 in Punjab Mail in Sleeper Class by paying an amount of Rs.251.24, he was allotted seat/berth No.40 in coach No.S-3, he boarded the train on 28.06.2014 and when he was sleeping at his confirmed seat/berth, TTE of opposite party No.1 i.e. opposite party No.2 checked his ticket and asked him that his seat/berth No.40 in Coach No.S-3 has been cancelled and allotted to some other person and in this way his seat/berth was wrongly and illegally cancelled by opposite party No.2 and under compelling circumstances, he had to get booked his seat in Coach No.S-4 at the instance of opposite party No.2 by paying extra fare of Rs.450/- to opposite party No.3 vide receipt dated 28.6.2014 Ex.C-3, who also charged a sum of
C.C. No.52 of 2015 //8//
Rs.200/- as bribe from the complainant for allotment of seat in coach No.S-4. A perusal of E-Ticket Ex.C-2 reveals that it was booked on 20.06.2014 in the name of complainant Vishal Arora with date of journey as 28.6.2014 and booking status has been shown as “CNF/S3/40/Side Upper”, meaning thereby the seat/berth No.40 in coach No.S-3 was confirmed in the name of the complainant and this fact has also been admitted by the opposite parties. As per allegations of the complainant, opposite party No.2 cancelled seat No.40 in S-3 of the complainant by writing on the ticket itself “40, Yes” under his signatures and this fact is evident from E-Ticket Ex.C-2. Receipt Ex.C-3 reveals that the complainant had paid Rs.450/- to opposite party No.3 for his further journey and seat No.57 was allotted to him by opposite party No.3 in S-4. There is no specific denial to the allegations leveled by the complainant against opposite party Nos.2 and 3, rather, the opposite parties have simply stated that the complainant himself got his ticket upgraded from opposite party No.3. When the complainant had already been allotted seat/berth No.40 in S-3, he was not supposed to change his seat midway in his journey and to pay extra sum of Rs.450/-. In para No.3 of his written reply on merits, opposite party No.3 has pleaded that receipt of excess fare ticket of Rs.450/- was signed by the complainant, whereas, a perusal of Excess Fare Ticket Ex.C-3 reveals that this receipt does not bear the signatures of the complainant and
C.C. No.52 of 2015 //9//
name of the complainant has been written in the handwriting of opposite party No.3. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that seat/berth No.40 allotted to the complainant in S-3 was wrongly and illegally cancelled by opposite party No.2 and the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.450/- to opposite party No.3 as excess fare vide Excess Fare Ticket Ex.C-3 for completing his further journey, which resulted into inconvenience and harassment of the complainant besides financial loss. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are guilty of providing deficient services to the complainant, which resulted into unwarranted harassment of the complainant as well as unnecessary financial burden upon the complainant. The attitude and behaviour of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 is highly depreciable and is liable to be curbed with heavy hands. Opposite party No.1, being the head of the Department, is also liable for the acts and omissions of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 are liable to refund the amount of Rs.450/-charged as excess fare from the complainant. Opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 are also liable to pay suitable compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 are directed to refund the excess fare of Rs.450/-, which was charged from the complainant vide Excess Fare Ticket Ex.C-3. Further
C.C. No.52 of 2015 //10//
opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 are directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment, including litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with jointly and severally by opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Opposite party No.1 is at liberty to deduct the above awarded amount of Rs.30,000/- from the salary of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
06.07.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
