Haryana

Ambala

CC/99/2020

Pirthi Paul Singh Sodhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager DRM - Opp.Party(s)

H.S. Gill

29 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :       99 of 2020

                                                          Date of Institution           :       20.04.2020

                                                          Date of decision    :       29.08.2022.

1. Pirthi Paul Singh Sodhi s/o Prabh Dayal Singh,
2. Harsharan Kaur w/o Pirthi Paul Singh Sodhi,
3. Arshjyot Kaur d/o Pirthi Paul Singh Sodhi,
4. Jaskirat Singh s/o Pirthi Paul Singh Sodhi,

All resident of H.No. 4, Ram Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                             ……. Complainants.

                                                Versus

1. Manager, Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, D.R.M. Office, Ambala.
2. Chief Commercial Manager (Refund), Second Floor, New Delhi Railway Station, New Delhi.
3. Chief Claims Officer South Central Railway, Headquarters Office, Rail Nilayam, 1" floor, Secundrabad.
4. IRCTC (INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD) Internet Ticketing Centre, IRCA Building, State Entry Road, New Delhi.

                                                                                       ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri H.S.Gill, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                             Shri Anupam Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.

                   Shri Dev Batra, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.4.  

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

1.                Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

(i) To pay/refund Rs.9,540/-, i.e the amount of the tickets (PNR No. 2615056639) to the complainants alongwith the interest @ 24% per annum.

ii) To pay Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant. 

iii) To pay Rs.10,000/-, as litigation costs.

                                      OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.                      

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant No.1 planned to go on pilgrimage to Shri Hajoor Sahib at Nanded, to attend a religious ceremony alongwith his family members i.e complainants No.2 to 4.. As such, on 17/10/2018 the complainant No.4 booked 4 four tickets, electronically, through  IRCTCs e-ticketing Service site of Indian Railways on 17.10.2018, for their journey  from  Ambala Cantt to Nanded Sahib and back. The tickets of complainants for the journey from Ambala Cantt to Nanded were booked vide PNR No.2615056639 with date of journey being 11/11/2018, Train No. 12752/ JAT NED HUMSAFAR for Class Third AC bearing Berth No. 18, 19, 21 and 22 of Coach No. B7, with boarding time from Ambala Canttat 14:05 Hours. For this journey, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.9540/- The return journey tickets were booked vide PNR No.4150644751 with date of journey as 15/11/2018, Train No. 12485/ NED SGNR EXPRES for Class Second AC bearing Berth No. 48, 40, 42 and 47 of Coach No. Al with boarding from H Sahib Nanded to New Delhi at 11:00 Hours for which they paid total amount of Rs.7455/-. The payment for both the journey tickets was made from the account of complainant no.4.On 11/11/2018, i.e. the day of journey and boarding from Ambala Cantt., complainant no.1 enquired about the status of Train No.12752 form Ambala Cantt. Railway Station Enquiry in the morning, whereupon, it was informed that the train was running late by one hour and 50 minutes due to its diversion. The complainant cross checked the train status from the online official site of the OPs i.e. NTES (National Train Enquiry System), which also showed that the train in question was running late by one hour and 50 minutes. Thus, it was shown by the OPs that the train will depart from Ambala Cantt Railway Station at 15:45 hours instead of its scheduled time of 14:05 hours. Complainant no.1, to ascertain the correct status of the train timings, personally went to the Ambala Cantt Railway Station at about 11:30 hours. The officer on duty confirmed him complainant no.1 that train was running late and will departure from Ambala Cantt Railway Station at 15:45 hours. The complainants were continuously checking the status of train on the NTES site which kept on displaying the departure time of the train as 15:45 hours and at 14:15 hours the complainant no.4 took the screenshot of the NTES site which was displaying the time of departure of the Train No.12752 to be 15:45 hours. Thus, as per the timing of the train given by the Enquiry Office and NTES, the complainants reached the Railway Station Ambala Cantt. at 15.05 hours i.e. 40 minutes before the time reported by the Railway systems but they were shocked to hear that the train No. 12752 left the Railway Station at 14:55 hours i.e. 50 minutes earlier from the time reported by the Enquiry Office and NTES and the complainants were not able to board it. Thereafter, the complainants lodged complaint with the OPs in the matter and also requested for refund of the amount paid by them towards the tickets in question. However, on the other hand, the OPs vide e-mail dated 25/11/2018, informed the complainants that their claim for the refund for the ticket PNR No. 2615056639 has been repudiated. The reason for repudiation/rejection was given as "Train not cancelled/diverted at boarding and/or reserved upto station". Complainants were surprised to note that even OP No.3 also hastily rejected the refund claim of the complainants vide letter dated 10/12/2018 stating therein that the NTES (National Train Enquiry System) site of Railways is not reliable and the contents of the site are for general information or use. All efforts made by the complainants seeking refund of the amount paid towards the tickets in question did not yield any result. By not making refund the amount by the OPs, despite the fact that they were at fault, they have committed deficiency in service.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction and cause of action etc. On merits, while admitting factual matrix of the case with regard to the purchase of the tickets in question by the complainants, for the journey, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, it has been stated that in fact the refund rules in respect of the tickets are governed by the Trains arrival and departure timings printed on the tickets. As per the disclaimer and terms and condition of the "National Train Enquiry System" application, all the contents of this site are only for general information or use. They do not constitute advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any decision, Government of India, Ministry of Railways hereby excludes any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, static/ dynamic data accuracy including train timings, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular purpose of the Site or any of its contents. Government of India, Ministry of Railways is not liable for any damages (including without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the Site, or any of its contents, or form any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any such contents. Government of India, Ministry of Railways, makes no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything-else which has contaminating ordestructive properties. The passengers are supposed to follow the timings printed on the tickets or as mentioned in the time table and present himself at the train boarding station well in advance to avoid any controversy. In the face of provisions of Railway Act, the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred to hear this complaint. As per the applicable rules, passenger is entitled to refund, in case, the train is delayed for more than 3 hours. However, in the present case, the train has departed well within 3 hours. The complainants were continuously checking the NTES, yet, on the other hand, they should have gone to railway station for boarding the train. It is further submitted that the helpline no.139 was not utilized by the complainants and they did not spend Rs.3/- on 139 Railway helpline number, yet, went to Ambala station, as alleged, to inquire delay and clicked the pic at 2:15 hours not before and not after. The train in question is a superfast train and as soon as the diverted route was provided, it reached according the station at the schedule time and left the same as per availability. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OPs No.1 to 3and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           OP No.4 appeared through its counsel and filed written version wherein  it has been stated that IRCTC/OP No.4 has enabled reservation website i.e. www.irctc.co.in, through which one can book & cancel e-tickets through internet. Hence OP No.4 is just to work as booking agent for the purpose of facility to be provided to the customer and as such, the confirmation of waiting list tickets, availability of seats, train operation is a subject matter of Railways. As soon as ticket is issued from OP No.4 website, case is transferred to Railways. Refund against booked ticket is processed as per the ticket status, train running status & time of cancellation of ticket, reason of filing online TDR, time of filing online TDR etc. OP No.4 has no role in deciding the refund to be made to the customers. At present, hi-tech arena measures are taken for reduction of delay time & effective train delay recovery. Steps are being taken by the authorities, so that a passenger doesn't have to wait the train to arrive at the station on time or worry about reaching destination late. "ETA" is just estimated time of arrival of a train at upcoming stations. Trains do recover time too. So the train delay at the upcoming stoppages may be less than what has been reported from the last station. Rest of the averments of the complaint were denied by OP No.4 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainants tendered affidavit of complainant No.1 as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-15 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered affidavit of Shri Vivek Sharma, IRTS, Sr.DCM/FS/UMB as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the OP No.4 tendered affidavit of Shri Yashvardhan, Assistant Manager/Catering Services, in IRCTC, Regional Office, SCO 80-82, 3^rd Floor, 34-A, Chandigarh as Annexure OP-4/A alongwith documents Annexure OP-4/1 to OP-4/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.4.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainants submitted that it was on account of fault on the part of the OPs, which reflected wrong information on NTES with regard to the arrival and departure time of the train in question, as a result whereof complainants complainants could not board the train, yet, when they sought refund of the amount paid towards the tickets in question, the OPs refused to do so, which  act amounts to deficiency in providing service. 
8.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 submitted that this Commission is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint in the face of Railway Act. He further submitted that as per the disclaimer and terms and condition of the "National Train Enquiry System" application, all the contents of this site are only for general information or use and do not constitute advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any decision. He further submitted that as per the applicable rules, passenger is entitled to refund, in case, the train is delayed for more than 3 hours, yet, in the present case, the train has departed well within 3 hours and there no provision prescribing refund of fare, as per rules. He further submitted that the complainants were supposed to follow the timings printed on the tickets or as mentioned in the time table and present themselves at the train boarding station well in advance to avoid any controversy. He further submitted that the train was diverted due to mega block planned for maintenance work on the track and since the train in question is a superfast train and as soon as the diverted route was provided, it reached according to the scheduled time and left the same as per the availability.
9.           Learned counsel for the OP No.4 submitted that OP No.4 is just to work as booking agent for the purpose of facility to be provided to the customer and as such, the confirmation of waiting list tickets, availability of seats, train operation is a subject matter of Railways. OP No.4 only provides access to Railway Passenger Reservation System through its servers & internet connectivity and as soon as the ticket is issued from OP No.4 website, case is transferred to Railways.  He further submitted that refund against booked ticket is processed as per the ticket status, train running status & time of cancellation of ticket, reason of filing online TDR, time of filing online TDR and OP No.4 has no role in deciding the refund.
10.           Following facts have not been disputed in this case:-
    • Booking of train tickets in  question by the complainants;
    • NTES showed that the train in question was delayed by 01.50 hours i.e. it was expected to leave at 15.45 hours on 11.11.2018 instead of 14.05 hours;
    • The train in question departed at 14.55 hours on 11.11.2018; and
    • The complainants could not board the said train as a result whereof they sought refund of the amount paid  from the OPsNo.1 to 3, which was refused by them.

 

11.           Under above circumstances, the following questions need to be decided by this Commission:-
    • Whether in face of the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railways Act, 1989, the jurisdiction of this Commission to decide this complaint is barred under Consumer Protection Act?
    • Whether, the complainants have been able to prove their case to the effect that wrong information with regard to the arrival and departure timings of the train in question was provided by the OPsNo.1 to 3on NTES?
    • Whether, the OPsNo.1 to 3 can wriggle out of the situation by stating that as per the disclaimer and terms and condition of the "National Train Enquiry System" application, all the contents of this site are only for general information or use and do not constitute advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any decision?
    • Whether, the complainants are entitled to get refund of the amount paid by them towards the tickets in question?

 

12.           First coming to the question, as to whether in face of the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railways Act, 1989, the jurisdiction of this Commission to decide this complaint is barred under Consumer Protection Act, it may be stated here that a similar question fell before the Hon’ble National Commission in Western Railway vs Vinod Sharma,  FIRST APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2015, decided on 18 January, 2017, wherein it was held that a harmonious construction of the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act and the Railways Act etc. shall indicate that the jurisdiction of the consumer fora cannot be barred, even if the provisions to provide compensation are laid down in the Railway legislation. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“…..16.    Further, Section '3' of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says as follows:-

"3.     Act not in derogation of any other law.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force."

17.    A plain reading of the provisions quoted above from the Railways Act, 1989 and the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 indicates that an elaborate mechanism has been laid down for providing compensation in the event of accidents, untoward incidents and allied matters, during the course of the operations, carried out by the Railways and for that purpose, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Claims Tribunal have been laid down.  It is to be determined, however, whether keeping in view the above provisions, the consumer fora shall also have the jurisdiction to deal with the matters, involving railway accidents.  The issue has come up for consideration from time to time before the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Commission as well.  It has been observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a special legislation, enacted to provide better protection for the interests of consumers in diverse fields.  It is true that for specific sectors such as banking, finance, insurance, supply of electricity, entertainment etc., appropriate mechanism has been laid down in the respective statute, to provide suitable relief to the consumers as per requirements.  However, the Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation, specially enacted for the protection of the consumers and provides an additional remedy in the shape of Section '3' of the Consumer Protection Act, which clearly lays down that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.  A harmonious construction of the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act and the Railways Act etc. shall indicate that the jurisdiction of the consumer fora cannot be barred, even if the provisions to provide compensation are laid down in the Railway legislation.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in their order in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society vs. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs, I (2004) CLT 20 (SC) and in Trans Mediterranean Airways vs. Universal Exports, IV 2011 CPJ 13(SC) observed that, " having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumers, the better provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully to give meaning to additional/extended jurisdiction, particularly when Section '3' seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts, unless there is clear bar.

18.    In State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society, I (2003) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed, that by reasons of the provisions of Section '3' of the Act, it is evident that remedies provided thereunder are not in derogation of those provided under other laws.  The said Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or other statutory authorities.

19.    Based on the discussion above, it is held that the consumer fora do have the jurisdiction to deal with the present case and hence, the consumer complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by the consumer fora….”

It is therefore held that even in face of the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and the Railways Act, 1989, the jurisdiction of this Commission to decide this complaint is not barred. Objection taken by OPs No.1 to 3 therefore stands rejected.

13.           The next question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the complainants have proved their case to the effect that wrong information with regard to the arrival and departure timings of the train in question was provided by the OPs No.1 to 3? It may be stated here that in order to prove their case, the complainants have placed on record the document Annexure C-3 dated 11.11.2018 i.e. the National Train Enquiry System" application, which is controlled and displayed by the OPs No.1 to 3for general information and use by the passengers/general public to know that exact time of arrival and departure of the trains. We have perused the contents of the said NTES and found that it has been shown therein the train in question would arrive at 15.45 on 11.11.2018. On the other hand, it is evident from the train tickets, Annexure C-1 that the scheduled time of the said train to depart from Ambala was 14.05. Thus, from the NTES application, Annexure C-3, it is evident that the train in question was shown to be delayed/late by 1 hour and 50 minutes from its actual time of departure. The OPs No.1 to 3have not disputed the contents of NTES- Annexure C-3 dated 11.11.2018. The OPs No.1 to 3have also not disputed that though in the first instance, it was shown on NTES that the train in question was delayed/late by 1 hour and 50 minutes from its actual time of departure, yet, it left the station at 14.55 hours instead of 15.45 i.e. 50 minutes earlier from the time shown on NTES. However, to wriggle out of the situation, it has been stated by the OPs No.1 to 3that in the first instance, the train was shown as late for 1 hours and 50 minutes, on account of mega block because of maintenance work at the railway lines, yet, because it was a superfast train, therefore it was given preference and as such, reached the station earlier and left at 14.55 hours. It may be stated here that the OPsNo.1 to 3 have failed to place on record any documents to prove that such information with regard to leaving of the train from the railway station at 14.55 hours was ever updated on NTES. The OPs No.1 to 3were thus deficient in providing service.
14.           The next question that falls for consideration is, as to whether, the OPs No.1 to 3 can wriggle out of the situation by stating that as per the disclaimer and terms and condition of the "National Train Enquiry System" application, all the contents of this site are only for general information or use and do not constitute advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any decision? It may be stated here that once, the OPsNo.1 to 3 have floated such applications for the use of general public, to apprise with regard to arrival and departure timings of the trains, later on, they cannot say that the said application (NTES)  should not be relied upon. On the other hand, it is evident from the contents of letter dated 18.12.2018, Annexure C-11 that the Department of Northern Railway, Ambala, directed to GM/CRIS, CRIS Complex, Chankyapuri, New Delhi, that based on the said NTES screenshot provided by the complainants, it was asked to provide details to fix the responsibility of  defaulter staff. Even otherwise, if there is no use of this application, the OPs No.1 to 3should have removed the same from their website, especially, when it is their own case that the same should not be relied upon but they have not done so. There is also nothing on record that such information was ever provided on the tickets to the effect that the NTES application should not be relied upon. Thus, from document Annexure C-11 itself, it has been proved that it was on account of fault of the defaulter staff that wrong information was provided on the NTES and once it is so proved, now the OPs No.1 to 3cannot wriggle out of the situation to say that the information provided at NTES cannot be relied upon. Thus, this question is answered in the negative. 
15.           The final question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to get refund of the amount paid by them towards the tickets in question? It may be stated here that it has been candidly admitted by the OPs No.1 to 3, in para no.5 of their written version that the arrival time and departure time of the train in question was delayed because of the reason that mega block was planned due to maintenance work on the track, yet, since the train in question was a superfast train, as soon as the diverted route was provided, the train reached at the schedule time and left as per the availability. Thus, if we read the contents of letter dated 18.12.2018, Annexure C-11 and NTES conjointly, it is coming out that the timing of arrival and departure of the train in question was wrongly shown/displayed on the NTES application, as the staff of  the OPsNo.1 to 3 failed to update the same, the moment, the said train was given diverted route, as it was a superfast train.  Thus, it can easily be said that the fault if any lies on the part of the staff of the OPsNo.1 to 3, in showing wrong information on the NTES application, which was provided on the internet, for general use of the public including the complainants to know about the exact schedule of arrival and departure of train. Under these circumstances, it is held that for any fault on the part of the staff of the OPs No.1 to 3, the complainants cannot be made to suffer loss and the OPs No.1 to 3 cannot be allowed to retain the amount paid towards purchase of the tickets, journey for which could not be performed by the complainants, for the reasons given above.  It is therefore held that the complainants are entitled to get back their money paid to the OPs No.1 to 3.
16.           As far as contention raised by the OPs No.1 to 3that as per the applicable Rules/Regulations, passenger is entitled to refund, in case, the train is delayed for more than 3 hours, it may be stated here that the present case relates to the dispute with regard to providing of wrong information to the general public including the complainants,  with regard to arrival and departure timings of the train in question, and as such, reliance placed on the said Rule is misplaced.
17.           Since, admittedly, OP No.4 was having a limited role of booking of tickets in question, and no specific allegations have been levelled by the complainants, against it, and  nor it has been proved, therefore the complaint filed by the complainants against OP no.4, is liable to be dismissed.
18.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against the OP No.4 and allow the same against the OPs No.1 to 3 and direct them, in the following manner:-
    1. To refund the amount of Rs.9540/- to the complainants received towards the train ticket-PNR No.2615056639, for which no journey was performed by them, alongwith interest @5% p.a. w.e.f 17.10.2018 i.e the date of receipt of the said amount, Annexure C-1, till realization. 
    2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainants.
    3. To pay Rs.2,000/-, as litigation expenses.

          The OPs No.1 to 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 29.08.2022.

 

 

     (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

         Member                             Member                            President