Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/70/2017

Jangi Ram Kaushal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ministry of Railways - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/70/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	24/12/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	31/08/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Jangi Ram Kaushal son of Late Shri Chuni Lal Kaushal, resident of H.No. 3175/2, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.

 

…… Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

1.   Ministry of Railways, through its Minister of Railways Shri Suresh Prabhu, Hon’ble, Room No.256-A, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi – 110001.

    

2.   Northern Railways, Headquarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi, through its Authorized Person.

 

3.   Northern Railways, Chandigarh Zone, Chandigarh, through its General Manager.

………… Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA      MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

            Sh. Sunil K. Sahore, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

          Briefly stated, the Complainant booked five train tickets from Opposite Parties on 02.01.2017, for himself and his family members, for the journey from Chandigarh to Jaipur through Train No. 12984 (Garib Rath) and the return journey from Jaipur to Chandigarh through Train No. 19717 (Jaipur - Chandigarh Intercity Express). The Complainant paid Rs.3375/- and Rs.3725/- for both the journeys. It has been averred that the Journey from Chandigarh to Jaipur was to be performed on 16.01.2017 and return journey on 19.01.2017. The journey from Chandigarh to Jaipur was performed on 16.01.2017 as scheduled, but on 19.01.2017 at 4.00 P.M. when the Complainant along with his family members reached the Railway Station, Jaipur, for boarding Train No. 19717, they were told that the said Train was cancelled from 17.12.2016. Left with no option, the Complainant had to book tickets for another Train (Pooja Express), but at that time the representatives of the Opposite Parties never informed the Complainant that the said Train is also 5-6 hrs. late from its actual departure. Since it was extreme cold during that time and it was unbearable for the Complainant to spent time at Railway Station with his ailing wife, his daughters and the minor child, the Complainant cancelled the train tickets and booked seats in the Volvo Bus to reach Chandigarh along with his family members aforesaid. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties, in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that keeping in view the safety of the passengers at large, the running of the trains were cancelled due to foggy weather. It has been asserted that initially due to the foggy weather, the train in question was cancelled w.e.f. 17.12.2016 to 15.01.2017, but on 14.01.2017 when the weather does not improve due to continuing fog, the cancellation of the said Train along with other Trains, was further extended from 15.01.2017 to 15.02.2017 and further to 28.02.2017. The trains which were running late was only due to the foggy weather conditions. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties has been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      The booking of the train tickets on 02.01.2017 by the Complainant, for himself and his family members, for the journey from Chandigarh to Jaipur through Train No. 12984 (Garib Rath) and the return journey from Jaipur to Chandigarh through Train No. 19717 (Jaipur - Chandigarh Intercity Express) has not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that the Complainant paid Rs.3375/- and Rs.3725/- for both the journeys.

 

8.      The Complainant has argued that Train No. 19717 (Jaipur - Chandigarh Intercity Express) was cancelled by the Opposite Parties, without any notice and that another train (Pooja Express) in which he booked tickets, subsequently, was also late by 5-6 hrs from its actual departure.  

 

9.      There is no denial of the fact that due to dense foggy/adverse conditions, to safeguard the lives of the passengers, at large, the Opposite Parties are bound to cancel the running of various trains. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that keeping in view the safety of the passengers, during the months of December 2016 to February 2017, running of various trains were cancelled. He has argued that notice regarding cancellation of the trains was given on the notice board at the ticket booking counters to apprise the passengers about the cancellation of different trains with effect from 17.12.2016 to 15.01.2017 due to foggy weather. He has contended that due to the continuance of foggy weather, the cancellation of the train was further extended from 15.01.2017 to 15.02.2017 and further to 28.02.2017. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Parties has drawn our attention to the chart showing the cancellation of the train in question with effect from 17.12.2016 to 15.01.2017 and further extended from 15.01.2017 to 15.02.2017 and further to 28.02.2017. The said chart has been annexed as Annexure OP-1 (colly). As against it, the Complainant has contended that no notice of cancellation has been issued by the Opposite Parties. Annexure OP-1 (colly), to our mind, belies the allegation of the Complainant that no notice has been issued for cancellation of the said train. However, in the present case, since the Opposite Parties had decided to cancel Train No. 19717 (Jaipur - Chandigarh Intercity Express) from 17.12.2016, to our mind, it was wholly unfair on the part of the Opposite Parties to book the train tickets of the Complainant on 02.01.2017 for the journey from 19.01.2017 from Jaipur to Chandigarh, due to which the Complainant along his family members suffered a lot and had to travel back to Chandigarh through Volvo Bus by incurring extra amount.     

 

10.      As far as the second limb of argument of the Complainant regarding late running of the train is concerned, we are of the concerted opinion, that the trains which were running late, was only due to foggy weather conditions and the same was beyond the control of the Opposite Parties. On that score, the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for deficiency in service. 

 

11.      Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed, to:-

 

[a]  Pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[b] Pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

12.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Parties; failing which they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation.

 

13.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

31^st August, 2017                                               Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

   PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                             Sd/- 

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER