Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/387

Sunil Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Vandana Travels - Opp.Party(s)

none

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 387 of 17.06.2015

Date of Decision            :   22.04.2016 

 

Sunil Kapoor son of Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor, resident of Block-1, House No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.M/s Vandana Travels Service, 110, Mehak Tower, Opp.Samrat Hotel, Kailash Cinema Road, Ludhiana-141008.

2.Station Superintendent, Ludhiana Railway Station(Northern Railways), Ludhiana-141008.

3.ADRM, Northern Railways, Ferozepur(Punjab)

4.The G.G.M.,I.R.C.T.C.,I.R. C.A.Reservation Complex, Chemsform Road, New Delhi.

5.Indian Railways through its Chief Comml Manager/S&PM, Northern Railways, Head Quarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.

…Opposite parties 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :          In person

For OP1                         :          Ex-parte.

For OP2 to OP5             :         Ms.Vijay Sharma, Advocate.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Sunil Kapoor against Ops by claiming that an application for journey cum reservation for four members of family of the complainant was made with M/s Vandana Travels on 7.6.2007 on prescribed form for issuance of railway e-tickets for sleeper class along with an amount of Rs.400/- in cash being token money. Request was made in the said application for three tickets for three persons from Ludhiana to Delhi and return journey ticket for one person from Delhi to Ludhiana. The complainant visited the said travel agency in the evening on 7.6.2007 to collect delivery of the said e-tickets and he was asked to deposit Rs.336/- including service charges of Rs.120/- (@Rs.30/- per head), besides token money. The prevalent service charge on that date was Rs.15/- on availing of one e-ticket of sleeper class. The complainant protested the demand of excess money, but to no avail. A notice board was also displayed in the office of OP1 exhibiting the aforesaid service charges of Rs.15/- per head. It was not clarified as to how much would be charged on any subsequent e-tickets applied for more than one person. News item dated 28.10.2011 appeared in Dainik Jagraon, Ludhiana city titled “Loot rahin hein private ticket agencies”. The complainant was forced to give service charges of Rs.120/-, instead of service charges prevalent on that date. Cash memo dated 7.6.2007 for a total amount of Rs.736/- was provided by OP1. Representation dated 8.6.2007 was made in person to Station Superintendent Ludhiana Railway Station(OP2), under intimation to OP3. The copy of the said representation was also sent to the Railway Minister, Indian Railways under registered cover for intimation and necessary action by the complainant. The detailed representation dated 18.7.2007 was made in person to OP2 regarding approaching of one Chaman Lal Ghai from OP1 to the complainant with an offer of bribe in person as well as on phone for taking back his complaint against OP1. The complainant has been constrained to make a detailed representation dated 1.7.2009 along with bunch of documents to the Cabinet Secretariat, Public Grievance Cell, 2^nd Floor, Sardar Patel Bhawan, New Delhi for taking up the matter with the Railways Authorities. Copy of letter dated 28.4.2010 from Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railways, Head Quarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi addressed to M.P.Sanjeevan (under Secretary), Public Grievances, Delhi under intimation to the complainant was received by the complainant on 12.5.2010, whereby it was intimated that one Smt.Vandna Wadhwa(Op1) has been fined Rs.800/- for the aforesaid irregularities. The OPs failed to refund the excess amount charged by OP1. The complainant has, thus, filed the consumer complaint that OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac for mental harassment caused to him and to refund the excess charged amount taken from him as well as the litigation expenses.

2.                This complaint was dismissed at the stage of admission earlier vide order dated 10.05.2012 passed by this Forum, but later on an appeal against those order was preferred and said order of this Forum was set-aside vide order dated 19.05.2015 passed in First Appeal No.855 of 2012 titled as Sunil Kapoor vs. M/s Vandana Travels Services and others by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and the matter was remitted back to this Forum for deciding the case on merits.

3.                OP1 filed the written statement by claiming that the complaint is not maintainable because answering OP has already been fined by OP2 to OP5 with penalty of Rs.800/- vide letter No.23/C/E-TKT-/Ldh dated 14.8.2007. It is claimed that no person can be penalized number of time for the same mistake. It is denied that excess amount was charged by OP1. Rather, amount was charged as per schedule fixed by the authorities. Complainant wants to blackmail Op1 and continuously threatening to grab the money, which is clear from news item got published by him. OP1 never forced  complainant  to give service charges of Rs.120/- as alleged. The fine imposed vide letter of 14.8.2007 has been duly paid by OP1 to the Railways Authorities. So, OP1 is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant.

4.                In the joint written reply filed by OP2 to OP5, it is pleaded interalia as if the present complaint is not maintainable because deficiency in service or negligent act of answering OPs not pointed out.  Besides,  it  is  claimed  that  OP2  to  Op5      on an enquiry being conducted and after finding irregularities committed by OP1, imposed penalty of Rs.800/-  imposed upon OP1.  Rather,  it  is  claimed that false and frivolous        claim put forth against the answering OPs. Admittedly, e-tickets in question were booked with answering OPs by complainant through Op1. Admittedly, after receiving complaint from complainant, Op2 to OP5 got an enquiry instituted for imposing penalty of Rs.800/- upon OP1. In view of this, it is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2 to OP5. Admittedly, letter dated 28.4.2010 sent by Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railways, head Quarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi was received by the complainant after 12.5.2010. Rather, it is claimed that complainant is not a consumer qua OP2 to OP5. Whole of the claim of the complainant is against OP1 and as such, complainant has no cause of action against Op2 to OP5. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                Even separate written statement on behalf of OP4 filed for claiming that Op4 has no concern with the transaction in question and as such, his impleadment is without basis. Op1 is neither agent of OP4 and nor Op1 issued any e-tickets to the complainant. OP4 only provides platform for issuing of e-tickets to the customers and the said platform was not used. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP4. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP4. Besides, it is claimed that complaint is not filed by proper person. The RTSA at Railway station was appointed by the concerned Division of the Zonal Railways and OP4 has no concern with the activities being carried out by RTSA. In the present case, Railway PRS card tickets were got issued by the RTSA(OP1) and no e-ticket was issued by OP4. Complainant appears to have confused card ticket issued at PRS with online e-ticket. As RTSA is not appointed by OP4 and as such, it has no concern with the activities of OP1. No representation was received by OP4 from the complainant at any point of time, but as per allegations of complainant, those representations were received by Railways authorities. Op4 is an independent entity and it has no role to play in the transaction in question. Other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of complaint against OP4.

6.                Complainant closed the evidence after tendering affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12, Ex.C13A to Ex.C13C, Ex.C14 to Ex.C24, Ex.C25A, Ex.C25B and Ex.C26 as well as Ex.C27(already sent by him through registered post).

7.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP2 to OP5 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Roshan Singh, Sr.Division Commercial Manager as well as affidavit Ex.RB of Sh.Sukhwinder Pal Singh, Deputy General Manager of IRCTC along with document Ex.R1  and thereafter, closed the evidence.

8.                OP1 is ex-parte in this case.

9.                Synopsis of written arguments filed by the complainant, but not by OPs. Oral arguments heard and records gone through minutely. 

10.               Ex.C1 is the document showing as if the journey e-tickets were got booked by the complainant through OP1 by paying advance amount of Rs.400/-. Rs.736/- in all including service charges of Rs.120/- were paid by the complainant to OP1 through receipt Ex.C2. Thereafter, railway reservation tickets Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 were got issued. Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 were issued on 7.6.2007. Submission of complainant is that service charges of Rs.120/- has been charged in excess by OP1, due to which, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Complaint of unfair trade practice in this respect Ex.C5 was sent through postal receipt Ex.C6 by the complainant to Station Superintendent, Ludhiana Railway Station, (Northern Railways), Ludhiana City. Refund of service charges sought by the complainant through this letter also sent to ADRM, Northern Railways, Ferozepur through postal receipt Ex.C7 on 8.6.2007. Thereafter, complaint qua inordinate delay in taking action qua complaint of offer of bribe submitted by the complainant as Ex.C8 and the same was sent to Railways Authorities through postal receipts Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 of 18.7.2007. Complaint regarding delay in disposal of representations dated 8.6.2007 and 18.7.2007 Ex.C11 was sent to Railway Authorities by the complainant through postal receipts Ex.C12 and Ex.C13A to Ex.C13C. In this complaint Ex.C11, itself it is mentioned that as per notice displayed on the notice board, charges of Rs.15/- per person claimable, but despite that Rs.30/- per head was charged as service charges for four tickets purchased by the complainant for his family. So, excess amount of Rs.60/- virtually alleged to be charged by OP1 from the complainant.

11.              Complainant even lodged representation dated 16.10.2009 Ex.C14 with the Chairman of Railway Board and then representation dated 17.12.2009 with The G.G.M., I.R.C.T.C., I.R.C.A, Reservation Complex, Chemsford Road, New Delhi Ex.C15 as well as Ex.C16 with the Under Secretary of Railway Ministry. Ex.C18 is acknowledgement sent to the complainant through postal receipt Ex.C17. Complainant even placed on record news items Ex.C19 to Ex.C23 for claiming that Rs.60/- charged on excessive rate by Railway Ticket Booking Agency. Ex.C24 sent through postal receipt Ex.C25A and Ex.C25B as well as Ex.C26 and Ex.C27 are the other representations sent by the complainant for redressal of his grievances by claiming as if Rs.110/- extra charged from him as ticket fare even including IRCTC service charges and agent service charges. Through Ex.C24, it is also mentioned as if the complainant got cancelled one of the purchased ticket and he was refunded Rs.50/- in cash against the said cancellation instead of Rs.80/-. Through Ex.C24, grievance put forth against agent i.e. Op1 qua keeping of Rs.30/- as extra money. For these irregularities, OP1 had already been punished vide letter No. 23/C/RTSA/VW/LDH dated 14.8.2007. Copy of that letter sent by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Ferozepur has been produced on record without exhibiting the same. In view of that copy of the letter, it is vehemently contended by counsel for OP2 to OP5 that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP2 to OP5 because for the fault of OP1, action has already been taken by OPs. The submission advanced by counsel for OP2 to OP5 in this respect has no force because OP1 acted as an agent of Railways Authorities and issued tickets by charging excess amount.

12.              As per Contract Act for the overt Act of agent, principal is also liable.

13.              Section 226 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that contract entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the contract had been entered into by the acts done by the principal in person. Further Section 227 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that when an agent does more than he is authorized to do, and when the part of what he does, which is within his authority, can be separated from the part which is beyond his authority, so much only of what he does as is within his authority is binding as between him and his principal. So, from these sections 226 and 227 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, it is made out that contracts entered into by an agent for and on behalf of principal, the principal is liable. As the tickets were got booked by the complainant with OP1, an agent of Railways and as such for the act of extra charging of amount by Op1, liability of Railways will remain because principal bound by the acts done by the agent in the course of agency.

14.              It is vehemently contended by the counsel for the OPs that OP4 is not a necessary party at all because there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP4. Rather, it is contended that OP4 was not connected with the transaction in question remotely even. Letter Ex.C15 has been sent by Chief Commercial Manager to OP4 for calling upon it to examine the matter and sent reply in respect of the complaint sent by the complainant to Railway Board. Copy of that letter even was sent to OP4 through Ex.C15. No intimation on the strength of Ex.C15 seems to be sent because copy of that reply sent by OP4 to Chief Commercial  Manager has not been produced by Ops at all. So, it is obvious that virtually OP4 has also    a role in the matter of finding as to whether excess amount charged or not. Complainant has approached various authorities for redressal of his grievances of excess charging of service charges and as such, virtually he has suffered mental harassment and agony, due to which, he is entitled for compensation for mental harassment and sufferings.

15.              Even if OP1 may have been penalized by way of imposing fine of Rs.800/-, but the departmental proceedings stands on different footing than that of proceedings before a Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum has to assume jurisdiction on finding deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice. Charging of extra amount of service tax or like that at the time of issue of tickets is a  mal-practice, which amounts to unfair trade practice and as such, in view of    charging of extra amount of service charges of Rs.60/- by OP1, an unfair trade practice adopted by OP1 as an agent of OPs. Keeping in view the fact that complainant has pursued his case for about 3 years by writing different letters to different Railways Authorities as referred above, he is entitled to compensation for an amount of Rs.5000/- for mental pain and sufferings.

16.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that complainant entitled for refund of the excess charged amount of Rs.60/-. Compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental harassment and sufferings, but litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OPs. Compliance of these directions be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Liability of OPs to pay the above referred amount will be  joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

17.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                 (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:22.04.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.