Haryana

StateCommission

A/659/2019

IRCTC - Complainant(s)

Versus

LT. COL. RETD. MANDEEP SINGH DHILLON - Opp.Party(s)

BHUWAN LUTHRA

27 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                      First Appeal No.659 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 24.07.2019

                                                        Date of Final Hearing: 27.10.2022

Date of pronouncement: 16.01.2023

 

IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd) B-148, 11^th Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001.

•  

Versus

1.      Ltd Co. (Retd.) Mandeep Singh Dhillon

2.      Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Dhillon, R/o # 462, Sector-2, Panchkula, Haryana.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    None for the appellant.

                   Ltd. Col. Retd. Mandeep Singh Dhillon-respondent in person.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.659 of 2019 has been filed against the impugned order dated 25.02.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (In short  now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.35 of 2018, which was allowed.

2.      There is a total delay of 116 days in filing of the appeal and appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay wherein,  it is alleged that  appellant did not receive the certified copy of order dated 25.02.2019. The summons in execution proceedings were received on 10.07.2019  in New Delhi and thereafter the same was sent to Chandigarh office. The counsel for the appellant applied for the order on 19.07.2019  and got the certified copy on 22.07.2019. The delay occurred in filing the present appeal was not intentional but due to the fact that certified copy was never received by the appellant. Thus, delay of 116 days in filing  of the present appeal be condoned.

3.      Arguments Heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant did not receive the certified copy of impugned order dated 25.02.2019. They learnt about the same only when the summons in execution proceedings were received on 10.07.2019  in New Delhi and thereafter the same was sent to Chandigarh office. The counsel for the appellant applied for the order on 19.07.2019  and got the certified copy on 22.07.2019. Due to the above said reasons, the appeal could not be filed, so the delay may be condoned. 

5.      This argument is not available.  A period of 45 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 45 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

6.                      The inordinate delay of 116 days cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

               In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

      In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  Rewa Coalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

         

7.      Taking into consideration the pleas raised by appellants in the application for condonation of delay and settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone delay of 116 days in filing of the appeal. Hence application filed for condonation of delay  in appeal No.659 of 2019 is dismissed.  

8.       The brief facts of the case are that on 12.10.2017, the complainant had booked two train tickets from Jaipur to Chandigarh for an amount of Rs.2590/-. The seats were confirmed as berth Nos.25 and 27 in AI coach. The journey was to be undertaken on 18.12.2017.    On 17.12.2017, the complainant alongwith his wife went to the railway station for checking the exact timing of the train, but, they were shocked to know that train was cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.2017. The OP did not inform about the cancellation of the train.  Intimation about cancellation was sent on 19.12.2017 through message after the scheduled departure time of the train. Faced with the situation, the complainant booked flight from Jaipur to Chandigarh and paid an amount of Rs.10560/- by net banking. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence the complaint.

9.      Notice issued. Opposite party filed the written statement taking preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary party,  territorial jurisdiction, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.   It was denied that it was the duty of OP to inform him or to make alternate arrangement of transport. The IRCTC was never aware of train operation or train cancellation etc. as the same comes under the purview of Indian Railway.   It was further denied that IRCTC was liable to compensate. Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint deserves dismissal.

10.    The complainant also filed rejoinder reiterating the averments of their complaint.  It was submitted that the complainant had booked the tickets with IRCTC, paid money to IRCTC and refund of money was also made by IRCTC. The details including mobile number, name, bank details were also available with IRCTC   As per the annual report of IRCTC for the year 2016-17, the Ministry of Railways and it is a profit making enterprise having the profit to the tune of Rs.211.71 crores in the year 2016-17. The complainant has prayed for allowing the claim.

11.    After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Panchkula has allowed the complaint vide order dated 25.02.2019. Relevant para is reproduced below:-

“ As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the OP to refund the amount of Rs.10,560/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount w.e.f. date of filing of present complaint till its realization. The OP is further directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.3000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation charges.”

12.    Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellants have preferred this appeal.

13.    This argument has been advanced by Lt. Col. Retd. Mandeep Singh Dhillon respondent in person.  The appellant has placed on record written arguments. With his kind assistance entire record of the appeal including that of the District Commission and evidence led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

14.    In the written arguments, the appellant averred that  complainant was admittedly informed regarding the cancellation of the train on 19.12.2017 whereas a bare perusal of message read as that “PNR2437626177 tickets cancelled AMT 2590/- will be refunded in your account with in three days. Please check your account/instrument from which this ticket was booked.” The message was not regarding cancellation of train but it was regarding cancellation of tickets and about  refund of the amount. Running of trains/cancellation of trains was purely in the hands of India Railways and appellant has nothing to do with that. The appellant was only providing ticket booking system to passengers. Learned District Commission has gravely erred in granting interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.10,560/- .

15.   Lt. Col. Retd. Mandeep Singh Dhillon respondent in person  argued that on 12.10.2017, they had booked two train tickets for travelling from Jaipur to Chandigarh for an amount of Rs.2590/-. The seats were confirmed as berth Nos.25 and 27 in AI coach, the journey was to be performed on 18.12.2017.    On 17.12.2017, they went to the railway station for checking exact timing of the train, but, were shocked to know that train was cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.2017. The OP has not informed about cancellation of train.  After the scheduled departure time of the said train, an intimation about cancellation was received through message.  The action of Indian Railways and IRCTC cancelling the train and not informing timely left them in great stress for the evening of 17.12.2017 and resulted in cancellation of their programme for the evening and even for the next day morning and afternoon i.e. 18.12.2018. Faced with the situation, the complainant booked flight from Jaipur to Chandigarh and paid an amount of Rs.10560/- by net banking. It was only after evaluating various factors which resulted with the confusion that learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint which of course does not call from any interference.

16.    It is not disputed that the complainant booked two train tickets for an amount of Rs.2590/-.  It is also not disputed that the seats were confirmed in AI coach.  It is also not disputed that the journey was to be performed on 18.12.2017from Jaipur to Chandigrh.

17.    Perusal of the file shows that the complainant received message on 19.12.2017 regarding cancellation of tickets  after  the scheduled departure time of the train that the train in question was cancelled w.e.f. 01.12.2017on wards. However it was the duty of the opposite party to have informed the general public as well as those persons whose tickets were booked before the departure of the train about cancellation of the train so that they could make some alternative arrangement. Since the complainant could not stay for long therefore according to the circumstances, they had to book out tickets in the flight from Jaipur to Chandigarh  by spending Rs.10560/-.  The IRCTC and Railway Department should have informed the complainant about cancellation of ticket/train  well in advance and if they  would have got information before hand and prior to the cancellation of ticket/train by IRCTC or Railway authorities,  then they could have arranged their journey from Jaipur to Chandigarh in some other train.  The learned District Commission has rightly partly allowed the complaint of the complainant.

18.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected having rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeal  stands dismissed on both counts  delay as well as on merits.

19.    The statutory amount of Rs.8147/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainants-respondents against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

20.              Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

21.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

22.              File be consigned to record room.

 

16th  January, 2023Suresh Chander Kaushik                       S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)