RESERVED

     STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                       APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2015

              (Against judgment and order dated 27-06-2015 in Complaint

             Case No. 185/2011 of the District Consumer Forum, Varanasi )

01.Chief Regional Manager

               Northern Railway

     Varanasi Cant.

02. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager

      Northern Railway

      Lucknow

03. General Manager Samanya

      Northern Railway

      Baroda House, New Delhi.

                                                                                          ...Appellants

                                                           Vs.

   Nagesh Chaubey Advocate

   S/o Late Ram Niddhi Chaubey

   R/o Village & Post Ajgara

   Pargana Ketehar

   Thana Cholapur

   Tehsil and District Varanasi

                                                                                                  ...Respondent

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER

For the Appellant                 :    Sri Prem Prakash Srivastava, Advocate.

For the Respondent              :    Sri Ram Gopal, Advocate.                 

Dated :   15-03-2017

                                                  JUDGMENT

          PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

Feeling aggrieved with judgment and order dated 27-06-2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Varanasi in Complaint Case No.185 of 2011; Nagesh Chaubey V/s Chief Regional Manager, Northern Railway, Varanasi Cantt. and others, Chief Regional Manager, Northern Railway, Varanasi Cantt. and others who are opposite parties of said complaint have filed this appeal under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before State Commission.

Vide impugned judgment and order the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and ordered opposite parties jointly and severally to pay

:2:

Rs.12,000/- to complainant for physical and mental harassment alogwith Rs.850/- fare of ticket paid by complainant. District Consumer Forum has further ordered said opposite parties to pay Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation. The District Consumer Forum has ordered opposite parties to pay above amounts within one month from the date of judgment subject to condition that in case of default on payment within stipulated period the opposite parties shall pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum to complainant from the date of complaint till the date of actual payment..

Learned Counsel Mr. Prem Prakash Srivastava appeared for appellants.

Learned Counsel Mr. Ram Gopal appeared for respondent.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for appellants/opposite parties that impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is against law as well as evidence. The appellants/opposite parties have committed no deficiency. In fact respondent/complainant had moved application for reservation of berth in HO quota when the berth of quota had already been filled.

Learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant has opposed appeal and contended that the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is in accordance with law and evidence. No interference is justified in impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum.  

We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.

The version of respondent/complainant according to complaint is that his sister Prem Lata is a cancer patient and she had to go to Bombay to attend Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay for her treatment. Therefore, respondent/complainant applied for reservation of ticket from Varanasi to Bombay in Mahanagri Train on 23-12-2009 but the respondent/complainant and his sister was issued ticket in waiting. As such on 26-12-2009 the

:3:

complainant applied before concerned authority of opposite parties to allot berth in quota of cancer patient but the complainant and his sister were not allotted berth in cancer patient quota and they could not go to Bombay on that date.

Written statement has been filed before District Consumer Forum on behalf of opposite parties wherein it has been stated that on 26-12-2009 respondent/complainant moved an application for allotment of berth in the quota of cancer patient but at that time the quota had already been filled. As such no berth could be allotted to complainant/respondent. It has been further stated in written statement that no deficiency has been committed by opposite parties and their employees. In written statement the opposite parties have further stated that the complaint is not maintainable before District Consumer Forum.

After having considered the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record the District Consumer Forum has held that opposite parties have not allotted berth to complainant in quota of cancer patient and has failed to show that the cancer patient quota was completely filled on that day. As such the District Consumer Forum has held that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by refusing berth to complainant and his cancer patient sister in cancer patient quota.

We have examined the finding recorded by District Consumer Forum in impugned judgment and order.

In paragraph 1 of written statement opposite parties have admitted that Prem Lata had to go to Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay as a cancer patient. They have not denied that Prem Lata was a cancer patient. The case of opposite parties is that when on 26-12-2009 the complainant/respondent moved application for reservation of berth in cancer patient quota, the quota had already been filled but the appellants/opposite parties have failed to produce record before District Consumer Forum to support their version and the opposite parties have not shown any sufficient reason for their failure to produce the papers before District Consumer Forum. As such an adverse inference shall be drawn against opposite parties and it shall be presumed

:4:

that if the papers relating to reservation of berth in train had been produced it would have been against opposite parties.

In view of discussion made above after having gone through pleadings of the parties as well as evidence on record we are of the view that the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by refusing berth to complainant and his cancer patient sister without genuine reason. As such no interference is justified in finding recorded by District Consumer Forum. The compensation and cost awarded by District Consumer Forum appears just and appropriate. Rate of interest awarded by District Consumer Forum is also appropriate.

Dispute raised by respondent/complainant in complaint is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The District Consumer Forum has rightly entertained complaint.

In view of conclusions drawn above we are of the view that the appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by appellants to respondent/complainant.

Rs.7,675/- deposited under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in this appeal shall be remitted to the District Consumer Forum alongwith interest accrued for disposal in accordance with law.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.

                                                                                     ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )                                                                 

                                                                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                                                      ( SMT. BAL KUMARI )

                                                                                                           MEMBER

          Pnt