By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1.The complaint in short is as follows: -
The case of the complainant is that, he is a kidney patient and he reserved two railway tickets on 17/09/2021 to travel up to Pondicherry Gipmer Hospital. He remitted Rs. 450/- towards railway ticket. Unfortunately, could not travel on that particular day and he was compelled to adjourned his journey from 17/09/2021 to 19/09/2021. While he cancelled railway ticket, he lost nearly 200/- rupees and also, he was denied the benefit of senior citizen`s travelling concession. According to complainant, he is entitled for 50% railway fare concession. But the opposite party realized the full fare from the complainant. Hence complainant prays for the compensation and also cost of the proceedings.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party on receipt of notice entered appearance and filed version and denied the entire averments and allegations contained in the complaint.
3. The opposite party No.1 submitted that in view of the health reasons, the health advisory issued directions regarding Covid -19 to discourage passengers from undertaking non-essential travel, Railway board vide letter dated 19/03/2020 had instructed all Zonal Railways for withdrawal of concession in passenger fare for all categories of passengers except four categories Divyanjan and 11 categories of patients till further advice. During Covid pandemic trains were operated as festival special trains with fare structure i.e., 1.3 times the fare. The fare of festival special trains is slightly higher, fare for Rajdhani, Shatabdi, Jan Shatabdi, Garib Rath, other Mail/Express trains are different according to the service/ operational standards. The passenger is free to choose trains according to their preference. Hence the fare of one train cannot be compared with the fare of other train with higher standard of service/operation.
4. The opposite party also contended that the complaint against the opposite party is not maintainable under law because the opposite party is a non-judicial person and cannot be sued as such. Union of India is a necessary party to any proceedings against Railway Administration. Under Article 300 of the Constitution, in a legal proceeding by or against the Central government, it is union of India and by or against State Government, it is the State which is suing or being sued. So, the contention is that complaint is defective for non-joinder of necessary party.
5. The opposite party contented that the Consumer Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint since the Railway Claims Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain a claim for refund of fare. The railway staffs has issued to the complainant by strictly adhering the instructions prevailing in force at the relevant time and hence it was not violation with any other rules or laws. There is no deficiency occurred from the part of the opposite party or from the part of Railway Administration and opposite party is not liable to pay even single rupee to the complainant as compensation. The opposite party Railway Administration is not liable to compensate for the alleged loss occurred due to the circular issued by Railway Board with the sole intention to contain the spread of Covid -19 and to protect public health. So that being the real facts, the Railway Administration is not legally or morally responsible to pay any amount as compensation to complainant.
5. Hence, the submission is that there is no any sort of deficiency from the part of the opposite party and opposite party has been made as an unnecessary party in the proceedings. So, the complaint against the opposite party is bad in law and liable to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party.
6. The opposite party filed an additional version contenting that they conducted a further enquiry about the complaint and some additional details were obtained to them. As per the enquiry it was found that the basic fare is Rs.380/- for two passengers i.e.,2ndsitting ticket. While adding IRCTC service charge Rs. 18/- and ATO charge Rs.20/- to the basic fare, the total amount will come to Rs. 418/-. But the agent has collected Rs. 450/- from the complainant instead of Rs. 418/- i.e., Rs.32 collected in excess. The opposite party further submitted if the ticket is cancelled before two days, the cancellation charge per ticket is Rs.60/-. If so, an amount of Rs. 120/- has to be deducted as cancellation charge of two persons. But in this case, the system generated slip shows that an amount of Rs. 190/- has been deducted i.e., Rs. 70 collected in excess. If the cancellation is within 24 hours of departure, then the cancellation charge at rate I.e., Rs. 190/-. It is not known to the opposite party at what time the ticket was cancelled and how Rs. 190/- was collected instead of real charge of Rs. 120/-.
7. The opposite party further submitted that the ticket was not taken directly from the Railway counter and it was taken from the Akshaya Centre, Tirur. The above explained discrepancy of Rs.32/- in purchasing the ticket and the difference of Rs. 70/- in cancellation of the ticket can be explained before the Commission by the Akshaya centre alone from where the ticket was purchased by the complainant. The opposite party submitted as far as from the information available in record that Rs.32/- collected in excess from the complainant at the time of purchase of the ticket and another 70/- rupees collected while cancelling the ticket. So, it is highly necessary to get impleaded the Akshaya centre, Tirur as a necessary party in the proceedings to get all the factors in detail. Hence as per the additional version the opposite party contented that Akshaya centre, Tirur as necessary party in the proceedings.
8. Thereafter the complainant filed an application to implead the Akshay Centre,Tirur as supplemental second opposite party and on impleading the additional party notice was issued from the Commission and on receipt of the notice the second opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party denied the averment in the complaint.
9. The contention of the second opposite party is that, the complainant approached the opposite party on 14/09/2021 and placed demand for two tickets to travel on 17/09/2021 to Pondicherry and accordingly opposite party collected fare of Rs. 397/- from the complainant along with Rs. 20/- as service charge and a total amount of Rs.417/-. Thereafter on 17/09/2021 the complainant informed that he is not able to travel on particular day and so ticket is to be cancelled. On receipt of phone call from the complainant the opposite party cancelled the ticket and the legally entitled refund amount of Rs.190/- was given to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant never turned to the opposite party and no complaint has been raised before him.
10. The second opposite party contented that, he was not aware of the ailment of the complainant and he has not collected Rs. 450/- from the complainant as alleged in the complaint. He collected only legally entitled amount from the complainant. It is submitted that due to Covid pandemic, the person above the age of 60 years where not allowed to travel with concession fare. The complainant had not enquired about the concession with the opposite party. The opposite party realized the actual fare from the complainant and on request through telephone to cancel the ticket, it was duly cancelled and legally entitled refund amount was given to the complainant also. There was no any sort of deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party.
11. The opposite party submitted that, he was about to leave UAE for a business purpose and unfortunately on receipt of notice from this Commission on the basis of a false complaint, the opposite party was compelled to leave the attempt to go abroad. So, he prays for a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant.
12. Thereafter the complainant represented before the Commission on 07/07/2022 that he is not seeking any remedy against the second opposite party and accordingly he endorsed the same on the complaint. But later the complainant filed an application to advance the complaint requesting to issue fresh notice to second opposite party contenting that he is necessary party to dispose the complaint properly. It was allowed and notice was issued to the second opposite party. But on the next hearing date i.e., on 22/08/2022, the complaint and first opposite party was present but the second opposite party did not turn up. The first opposite party filed affidavit and the document marked as Ext. B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the copy of the letter No.TC-11/2003/20/Covid 19 dated 19/03/2020 issued by the Railway Board. Ext. B2 is the copy of the relevant pages of the notification from Ministry of Railways, dated 4th November 2015 regarding Railway passengers Rules,1998. One chance was given to second opposite party to file the affidavit and the case was posted to 30/09/2022. On that day complainant alone was present. Complainant filed affidavit but no documents marked on his side. Opposite parties were absent. The complainant was heard and taken for orders.
13 The Commission examined the documents produced by the opposite party No.1 and the averments in the affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the first opposite party. The grievance of the complaint is that the opposite party collected Rs. 450/- from the complainant. But the complainant could not produce any document to show that he paid an amount of Rs. 450/- to the opposite party. In the absence of evidence from the side of complainant we cannot hold that the opposite party had collected Rs. 450/- from the complainant. The first opposite party submitted in the affidavit and also through the Ext. B1 & B2 that there was no concession to the senior citizens as claimed by the complainant during the transaction period between the complainant and opposite parties. So, complainant could not establish the contention regarding the concession for the senior citizens. In the absence of evidence that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.450/- to the opposite party and also absence of evidence regarding the concession, the case of the complainant stands failed. In the above facts and circumstances, we cannot find any merit in the complaint and complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2022
MOHANDASANK., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMANC., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1 & B2.
Ext.B1 : Copy of the letter No.TC-11/2003/20/Covid 19 dated 19/03/2020 issued by
the Railway Board.
Ext. B2 : Copy of the relevant pages of the notification from Ministry of Railways,
dated 4th November 2015 regarding Railway passengers Rules,1998 .
MOHANDASANK., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMANC., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
