BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 144 OF 2016 AGAINST C.C.NO.2 OF 2015 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I HYDERABAD
Between
The Chief Claims Officer
South Central Railway
Hea Quarters Office
Commercial (Claims Branch)
Rail Nilayam, 1st Floor
Secunderabad-500 071
Appellant/opposite party
AND
Mohd Yousuf S/o late Khaja Moinuddin
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Service
R/o H.No.9-3-58/B/64, Ahmed Colony
Hyderabad-500 008
Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant M/s R.Dilip Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent Party in person
QUORUM :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
TUESDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND EIGHTEEN
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This is an appeal filed by the opposite party aggrieved by the orders of District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad dated 30.03.2016 made in CC No.02 of 2015 wherein it allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay Rs.11,150/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- within one month failing which the said amount of Rs.11,150/- shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the opposite party issued Railway ticket with PNR No.46090687220 by train no.12733 with wrong date as 17.05.2015 instead of 17.06.2014 to the complainant. Accordingly the complainant approached railway authority and the same was brought to their notice and requested for refund. The opposite party showed the requisition form wherein the complainant has written two dates as 17.05.2014 and 17.06.2014. When the complainant asked the staff of the opposite party to look into the date what they have mentioned but they ignored the same. The PNR is for five members out of them four persons are in waiting list and one person has got RAC status. As a practice the opposite party used to send SMS with regard to PNR status and departure of train 12 hours in advance but they did not send any such message to the complainant. Had the opposite party informed the mistake committed by them, the complainant could have cancelled the ticket and make requisition for refund of the ticket amount. The complainant also addressed letter dated 18.06.2014 and sought for refund of the ticket amount but there was no reply to the said letter. Hence, the complaint praying to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.11,554/- towards refund of the ticket along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs.
4. The opposite party resisted the case contending that PNR number mentioned in the complaint has 11 digits but actually the PNR
was 10 digit numbers. The complainant has submitted an application for reservation on 17.05.2014 and accordingly the reservation was made as per the details given by the customer. It is the primary duty of the customer to verify the details printed on the ticket before leaving the counter. Whenever an application is submitted no counter clerk would suggest the passenger to approach another counter for whatsoever reason. As per existing rules in case of waitlisted ticket, the ticket should be surrendered for refund within three hours of the actual departure of the train and he had written a letter seeking refund for which it was replied that refund cannot be entertained as the ticket was not surrendered within three hours. The complainant had already made a reservation on 20.05.2014 for 17.06.2014 as such the complainant was well aware of his mistake and made a reservation. The correspondence of the complainant would clearly show that he intend to get refund of money which he lost due to non-submission of tickets in time. Had the complainant filled properly the reservation form or checked the details of the ticket before leaving the counter the staff of the opposite party at the counter would have rectified the same by issuing a fresh ticket. The date of journey appears at two places on the top row as well as bottom at the right corner indicating the name of the station, boarding time and date of journey as such the complainant failed to write the correct date and also failed to check the ticket and instead of doing so blaming the opposite party for the mistake committed by him. Hence, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In proof of the complainant’s case, he filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the opposite party, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway has filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.
6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No. 12 of 2017 by orders dated 13.09.2017 as stated in paragraph No.1, supra.
7. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite parties preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. The District Forum has failed to take note of the wilful and dishonest act of the respondent/complainant who has misused the Forum for wrongful gain with dishonesty. The District Forum allowed the complaint contrary to law without any material evidence. The District Forum has not appreciated and taken into account the mistakes committed by the complainant in filing the reservation requisition form in the prescribed format. He has mentioned in the column meant for onward and return journey date as 17.06.2014 and the Class as II Tier AC. The designated reservation official has accordingly issued a ticket as per the information provided by the complainant in the requisition form and there was no mistake on his part much less a deficiency of service. As per the rules and regulations of the Ministry of railways vide Circular No.TCII/2003/12/Refund Policy dated 14.06.2013, it is clearly a case of claiming refund of money beyond the prescribed period. Entertaining the claim of the complainant would have amounted to violation of the circular of the Government of India attracting action against the opposite party. As per Sections 13, 15 and 25 of Railway claims tribunal ousts the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum and the Hon’ble National Commission also confirmed the same vide its decisions reported in (2012)CPJ 299. Hence, the opposite party prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint.
8. Counsel for the appellant present and was heard. No representation on behalf of the respondent. Written arguments of both parties filed.
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
10. While considering both the contentions and upon perusal of the documents and materials, our attention was drawn to the provisions under the Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987 under Section 13 regarding jurisdiction powers and authority of Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987, in which, it is stated as follows:
13. Jurisdiction, Powers and Authority of Claims Tribunal(1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act,
(a) relating to the responsibility of the railways administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-
(i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railways;
(ii) compensation payable under Section 82-A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and
(b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railways administration to be carried by railway.
[(1-A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provision of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claims for compensation now payable by the railway administration under Section 124-A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder).
11. As per the Section 13 regarding the claim relating to refund of fares or part thereof, Railways Claims Tribunal alone has got jurisdiction even from the year 1994 and thereby the complaint is barred under the Section 13 and as per the Section 13, it is specifically barred any Civil Court and Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of Railways Act from the date of notification and in this view of the jurisdiction bar , the complainant is prevented from claiming any relief from the Consumer Forum.
12. According to Section 15 of the Act 1987, there is a definite bar of jurisdiction provided in that Section. It says that on and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in sub-sections (1) and (1A) of Section 13. Thus, there is a clear bar of jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum from entertaining the present complaint
13. Apart from the jurisdiction if we consider the merits of the case, the case of the complainant is that the opposite party had issued wait list ticket with wrong date as 17.05.2014 instead of 17.06.2014 and he did not observe the mistake immediately, he observed the said mistake only after he received message on 19.05.2015 after the departure of the train. The complainant approached the opposite party for cancellation and refund of the ticket but the opposite party did not refund the ticket amount.
14. On the other hand the opposite party contended that it is the primary duty of the complainant to verify the details printed on the ticket before leaving the counter. As per existing rules in case of wait listed ticket, the ticket should be surrendered for refund within three hours of the actual departure of the train. Though the complainant addressed letter for refund of the fare but he did not surrender the original ticket to the opposite party and the same was informed to the complainant. It was also contended that if the complainant is not satisfied with the reply given he should have approached Railway Claims tribunal only as per Section 13(b) of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1967. The complainant himself had wrongly filled the date and the ticket was correctly issued for the date for which the reservation was sought.
15. Ex.B1 is the copy of requisition form submitted by the complainant to the opposite party for booking the ticket to New Delhi from Hyderabad by AP Express for five persons.. Admittedly the date of journey was mentioned on the requisition form as 17.05.2014 and the class as 2Tire Ac. It is to be noted that on the top of the application form the date of journey mentioned as 17.05.2014 and at the bottom it was mentioned as 17.06.2014. Usually the date of journey column is present on the top of the requisition form and the return journey date column on the bottom. Therefore, as usual the designated reservation official has gone through upper column of the date and accordingly issued a ticket as per the information provided by the complainant on the top of the date column. The complainant took the ticket and did not verify the details printed on the ticket and left the counter. It was also mentioned on the requisition form at point No.3 that “please check your ticket & balance amount before leaving the window” but the complainant did not check the ticket and left the counter. Thereafter the complainant as per his contention received the message regarding departure on 19.05.2014 and addressed letter to the opposite party on 20.05.2014 requested the opposite party to refund the amount or to issue fresh ticket by changing the ate of journey as 17.06.2014 from 17.05.2014. The opposite party vide its reply dated 18.06.2014 informed the complainant that his request cannot be considered as he failed to surrender the ticket within 3 hours of the actual departure of train. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant has not filled the requisition form properly with correct facts that even if the ticket was wrongly issued with wrong date had the complainant checked the ticket before leaving the counter he could have found out the mistake he would have taken a fresh ticket for correct date. Not doing so, the complainant cannot blame the opposite party for issuance of ticket with wrong date.
16. Therefore, as per the above sections and even on merits the complainant has no case before the Consumer Fora. Accordingly, we consider that the District Forum has erroneously entertained the complaint and allowed the complaint in a wrong manner, with which, we feel that it should be set aside in view of the foregoing discussions and the specific bar under the special law and thereby the appeal deserves to be allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
27.03.2018
