Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/110/2016

Union of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagjit Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil K. Sahore

21 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.	:	110 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	05.04.2016
Date of Decision	:	21.07.2016

 

1. Union of India through the Secretary/General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Northern Railway Ambala, Tehsil and District Ambala through its Divisional Railway Manager.
3. Northern Railway, Branch Chandigarh, through its Divisional Railway Manager.

The present appeal is being filed through Sh. Parveen Gaur Dwivedi, Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, c/o DRM Office, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantton behalf of appellants.

…..Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

Jagjit Singh, aged about 47 years, son of Late Sh. Bal Bahadur Singh, resident of H.No.961, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                       …..Respondent/Complainant

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                 MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:   Sh. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for the appellants.

                     Sh. Sudesh Sahi, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against an order dated 09.02.2016 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:-

“[a] To refund the amount charged towards two   vegetarian food trays to the complainant;

  [b] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of  Rs.5,000/-

The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above, from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.”

2.  The facts in brief, are that, the complainant along with his family consisting of himself, his wife, daughter, son and father-in-law namely Sh. Mohan Singh, visited Kanpur (UP) to meet his brother-in-law, by availing LTC facility and purchased the railway tickets of Shatabdi Train, for the said journey, as detailed in Para No.2 of the complaint. It is stated that in the Kalka Shatabdi Train No.12006 boarded from Chandigarh at 6.53 A.M., the staff served breakfast etc. only to the complainant, his wife and father-in-law, but did not serve/provide any breakfast to his son and daughter saying that they do not have any food, as the same has finished.  It was further stated that the complainant reported the matter to TTE, as well as, mentioned this fact in the feedback chart provided to him.  It was further stated that on reaching New Delhi, the complainant came to know from Station Master there, that the train booked by them for Kanpur is late by 20 hours, as such the complainant had to cancel the booked tickets and purchased the tickets of Gomti Express for reaching Kanpur. 
3.   It was further stated that, on the returning day i.e. on 30.12.2014, when the complainant and his family members reached Railway Station Central, Kanpur, he noticed from the notice board that the Train No.12033, which was booked by them, for reaching New Delhi, was running late by 18 to 20 hours.  It was further stated that the complainant again had to get his tickets cancelled and purchased new ordinary tickets of Paryagraj Express Train No.12417, but the said train instead of reaching New Delhi at the scheduled time of 3.00/3.30 P.M., ultimately reached New Delhi by much delay i.e. at about 9.00 P.M. and by that time, due to such delay, the complainant missed the Kalka-Shatabdi Train No.12005 for New Delhi to Chandigarh and more so, the Station Master, refused to refund any amount to the complainant saying that he arrived late and therefore, the complainant had to travel by bus to Chandigarh.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties.
4.  The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and pleaded that in view of Section 13 & 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the present compliant is not maintainable. The booking of tickets, travel made by the complainant along with his family and cancellation of ticket, done by the complainant, are admitted.  It was denied by the Opposite Parties that the food was finished in the train and could not be served.  It was stated that on 25.12.2014 in Train No.12006 total passengers who travelled on the train was 807 against the total capacity of 892 passengers.  It was further stated that the total food was carried in the train was 900 units and after serving to all the passengers, 93 units of the food was left out and in this regard, the statement of Sh. Amar Pratap Singh, Catering Manager on Train No.12006/05 is enclosed as Annexure OP-1.  It was further stated that on 25.12.2014, no public complaint was received by the Ticketing Staff on the train, nor any passenger reported about the non-serving of food to them, and in this regard, the statement of Sh. K.P.Singh, TS on the train and Sh. Surjit Singh, Dy. CIT, Kalka, is enclosed as Annexures OP-2 and OP-3.  It was further stated that due to winter season and foggy weather, the trains run very slow in the larger public safety of the passengers and thus, were delayed due to heavy fog, which is beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part, and the answering Opposite Parties had prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening paragraph of the instant order.
7.  Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. After going through the facts of the case we are of the considered opinion that the appeal in the instant case deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons.
10.         On perusal of the documents placed on the record, it is observed that there are only two main grouses of the complainant. The first pertaining to the non-serving of vegetarian food to the children of the complainant and secondly, the non-refund of passenger ticket. The Complainant has nowhere mentioned about any harassment with regard to the cancellation and refund of the tickets, but the complainant has grouse with regard to the non-serving of vegetarian food to his children which caused him discomfort. The complainant had also requested for the refund of the charges towards unserved food. The Opposite Party failed to provide the break-up of Vegetarian and Non-Vegetarian Food trays, which could have been easily served to the children of the complainant. Since the Opposite Parties failed to produce any cogent evidence, we are of the concerned opinion that the averments of the complainant duly supported by an affidavit leave us to believe that the Opposite Parties failed in their services towards the complainant. Thus, the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant of this matter and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
12.       Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

21.7.2016                

 

                                 

                                                               Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                       

 

                                                                                Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

                                                                               

 

                                                                        Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Gp

 

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.110 of 2016)

(Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh)

 

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Sunil K. Sahore, Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Sudesh Sahi, Advocate for the respondent.

 

Dated the 21^st day of July 2016

 

ORDER

 

              Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed, with no order as to cost and the order passed by the District Forum has been upheld.

 

Sd/-                        Sd/-                             Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER