(Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This appeal is filed by the original complainant not satisfied with the partial relief granted by the District Forum, Ratnagiri in Consumer Complaint No.45/2003 by passing judgement on 14/09/2004. The grievance of the complainant was that the opponent Konkan Railway Corporation is engaged in the activity of plying passengers. For this purpose, they have railway stations in all prime cities and villages of Konkan with ticket booking offices. In spite of this arrangement, opponents have authorized private agents for booking tickets who charge ` 30/- `40/- & `50% extra per ticket depending upon class of travel as service charge in addition to regular fare and reservation charges. The opponent has also kept 80% quota reserved for these private agents. According to the complainant, this was improper, he filed consumer complaint praying for direction against the opponent to stop this Unfair Trade Practice and Restrictive Trade Practice. The same was resisted by the opponent by filing written version. According to the opponent, the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such type of complaint. The jurisdiction to try the complaint lies exclusively with Railway Rates Tribunal. According to the opponent, the private booking agents are appointed on the basis of demand made by public and nobody is compelled to buy tickets from these agents. This facility is made in addition to the ticket booking windows at railway stations. As per the gazette notification issued by Ministry of Railway dated 15/09/1998, it is fully authorized to appoint such agencies and these agencies are provided for the convenience and comfort of passengers. According to the opponent, since these private agents as well as opponent corporation have spent huge sums on the development of infrastructure to provide this facility, they are required to charge some extra money from passengers and therefore the complainants should have no reason to complain about the same. Hence, the opponent prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The forum, however, considering the facts of the case, pleading and affidavits of the parties, allowed the complaint partly prohibited opponent corporation from allotting any particular quota whatsoever of Railway tickets to private agents appointed by them in Ratnagiri District. The forum below also directed that the said order was to take effect from 1st November, 2004 and to pay `5,000/- to the complainant by way of cost of litigation before 01/11/2004. Not satisfied with the order of the district forum, Grahak Panchayat Ratnagiri filed his appeal.
(2) This appeal was filed in 2004 and as on 07/12/2004 none was present, it was adjourned to 07/02/2005 and on 07/02/2005 also none was present, it was adjourned to 05/07/2005. Thus appeal is lying unattended from 05/07/2005. The appellant also has not bothered to take circulation for getting first order passed. Therefore, on 09/08/2011, this matter was taken out from sine-die list and placed before us for disposal. Intimation of that date was displayed on notice board and published on internet board of the Commission. On 09/08/2011, on finding that appellant as well as the respondent were absent, we directed office to issue notice informing next date of hearing i.e. 05/10/2011 to both the parties. Accordingly, on 09/09/2011, office issued notices to the parties. On 05/10/2011 i.e. today, the appellant as well as the respondent are absent. Therefore, we are deciding the matter on merit. We perused the impugned order. We are finding that the forum below has allowed one prayer made by the complainant out of two prayers. The forum below by its order allowed the complaint and prohibited the respondents from allotting any quota to ticket booking agents, but the forum below did not pass any order regarding service charge to be charged by the private booking agents appointed by the opponent corporation. The forum below turned down this prayer. Aggrieved by this partial relief granted by the District Forum, Ratnagiri, Grahak Panchayat Ratnagiri filed his appeal. We perused the impugned order. We are finding that the forum below has not considered the plea taken by the opponent corporation in their affidavit that under the provision of Sec.36 of Railways Act, 1989, a complaint in respect of levying any charges against the railway administration is required to be made to the Railway Rates Tribunal which has been empowered to hear and decide such complaint. The forum below has ignored the said aspect and passed order prohibiting the railway from allotting any special quota for the private booking agents appointed by the Konkan Railway Corporation. Since Konkan Railway has not filed appeal, we can hardly rectify the order passed by the forum below. The prayer of the appellant to stop charging service charges was turned down by the district forum. The service charges are levied by the Konkan Railway Corporation as per the contract entered by Konkan Railway Corporation and private agents. In the circumstances, the appellant’s prayer that the railway should be restrained from levying services charges cannot be allowed. We are finding that the appeal filed by Grahak Panchayat Ratnagiri is devoid of any merit. There is a matter of agency being run by railway corporation and booking agents are appointed by the Konkan Railway Corporation. The order passed by the district forum is just and proper. The appeal filed by appellant is without any substance and liable to be dismissed. Hence, the order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal stands dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.
(3) Inform the parties, accordingly.
Pronounced on 5th October, 2011.
