This revision is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi ( in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.357/2014, whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 03.01.2014 of the District Forum whereby the petitioner / opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- to the respondent / complainant.

2.         Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that on 14.02.2013, the respondent / complainant booked a three tier AC ticket for travel from Allahabad to Delhi in Lichchavi Express.  The date of travel was 08.03.2013.  It is the case of the complainant that on 08.03.2013 when he reached Allahabad junction at the time of departure of train mentioned in the ticket, he found that service of the said train was cancelled.  On inquiry, he was told that aforesaid train was not running for last few months.  Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the respondent filed a consumer complaint.

3.         The petitioner / opposite party appeared before the District Forum on hearing dated 17.10.2013 when he was supplied with copy of the paper book and the matter was adjourned to 03.01.2014.  On 03.01.2014, the petitioner failed to put in appearance. Accordingly, petitioner / opposite party was proceeded ex parte and the complaint was allowed with following directions:

“OP was proceeded ex-parte.  We have considered the complaint.  It is clear case of deficiency on the part of the OP in issuing a ticket from internet without updating information on internet about its non availability of the services.  This has resulted in direct harassment to the complainant by his booking the train and reaching the station and postponement of showing.  In reply to RTI inquiry from the complainant railways has informed him that train was cancelled from 29.12.2012 vide message no.EO/194/NR dt.27.02.2013 and this cancellation was further extended.  This clearly proves the deficiency on the part of the OP.

Keeping in view the nature of deficiency and inconvenience caused to consumer and many other like him.  We award compensation of Rs.25000/- to the complainant including litigation expenses.

If the compliance will not be made within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, OP will also pay interest @ 12% for the delayed period”. 

4.         Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the State Commission Delhi vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine. This led to filing of revision petition.

5.         Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the District Forum which has been affirmed by the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason because it has been passed at the back of the petitioner and that too without any evidence.  It is contended that foras below have failed to appreciate that cancellation of train was due to unforeseen and unpredicted foggy conditions and that Railway Board decided to cancel number of trains including the subject train from 01.01.2013 to 17.02.2013 which was further extended to 15.03.2013.  It is argued that this fact was conveyed to the complainant in response to his legal notice.  Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner may be permitted to place its case before the District Forum and requested for remand of the case to the District Forum for decision on merits after obtaining written statement of the petitioner on record.

6.         We  have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.  The petitioner has placed on record photocopy of the proceedings recorded by the District Forum of hearings dated 08.08.2013, 12.08.2013, 17.10.2013 and 03.01.2014.  On perusal of the aforesaid proceedings, it is obvious that the complaint was admitted on 12.08.2013 and notice was issued to the opposite party (petitioner) on hearing dated 17.10.2013.  On the said date, the petitioner appeared and copy of complaint / annextures were supplied to him and the matter was adjourned to 03.01.2014.  Despite of 2 ½ month adjournment, the petitioner / opposite party did not file written statement and even failed to put in appearance on hearing dated 03.01.2014 and this led to ex parte order against the petitioner.  From the aforesaid history of the progress of complaint  before the District Forum, the order of District Forum proceeding ex parte against the petitioner cannot be faulted.

7.         Coming  to the merits of the case.  Undisputedly, the ticket was booked by the complainant on internet on 14.02.2013 for the travel dated 08.03.2013. It is the case of the petitioner in his revision petition that running of train in question was cancelled by the railway officials from 01.01.2013 to 17.02.2013 and cancellation was further extended till 15.03.2013.   The least expected from the railway was to intimate the respondent / complainant about the cancellation of running of train on 13.02.2013 in order to save him of unnecessary trouble to visit the railway station to board the train which was not cancelled.  This is gross deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner / opposite party.  Therefore, we do not find any fault with the orders of the foras below in allowing the complaint and awarding the compensation.  In view of the discussion above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.