Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/71/2015

Station Master, New Delhi Railway Station - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nazim Ahamed - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil K. Sahore, Adv.

01 Apr 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	71 of 2015
Date of Institution	23.03.2015
Date of Decision	01.04.2015

 

1. Station Master, New Delhi Railway Station.
2. General Manager, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

                                …..Appellants/Opposite Parties.

                                Versus

Nazim Ahamed S/o Nafis Ahamed, R/o H.No.3658, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh.

                                        .…..Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Sunil K.Sahore, Advocate for the                                      appellants.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.01.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint No.374 of 2014, filed by the complainant, with the following directions:-

“11.             For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed.  The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed to:-

 

[a]      To pay Rs.5,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[b]      To pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation;

12.               The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of para 11 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. “

2.             The facts, in brief, are that on 13.05.2014 the complainant and his wife were travelling in train No.22405 Garib Rath from Bhagalpur to Anand Vihar and the said train reached at Bhagalpur Station 5 hours late. It was stated that the complainant and his wife sat in train No.22405 Garib Rath, which reached Anand Vihar 8 hours late and due to this reason, he missed his next train No.12217 from New Delhi to Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Station Master to connect his ticket with some other train, so that he could reach his location (Chandigarh), but he (Station Master) refused his request saying that the same was not permissible under law. It was further stated that the complainant submitted that when he got the reservation done, he clearly mentioned in the reservation form that the journey was from Bhagalpur to Anand Vihar and New Delhi to Chandigarh. It was further stated that when the Station Master refused the request of the complainant, he and his wife took 2^nd class (General) tickets to reach Chandigarh.  It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.             In their written statement, the Opposite Parties, stated that the complaint was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction because the cause of action arose at New Delhi, where the complainant missed his train. It was further stated that no part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh and hence the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further stated that the journey of the complainant was from Bhagalpur Railway Station to Anand Vihar Railway Station, without connectivity of the same, from New Delhi to Chandigarh. It was further stated that since there was no booking of connectivity in the trains and on account of any delay in arrival of the train at New Delhi, no loss including mental harassment allegedly caused to the complainant could be attributed to the Railways. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             The complainant, filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties,                                                                   wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties.   

5.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing the complainant in person, Counsel for the Opposite Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.             The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties submitted that the District Forum while passing the impugned order wrongly held that it, (District Forum) had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because the complainant had taken two different tickets for his journey and the train was missed by him at New Delhi and no part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh. He further submitted that the District Forum ignored that there was nothing wrong in booking of tickets and merely booking of tickets from Chandigarh did confer territorial jurisdiction on it. He further submitted that the District Forum erred in holding that the revalidation of tickets was made on junction station only. He further submitted that the District Forum failed to observe that in this case there was neither a single ticket nor there was connectivity of tickets. He further submitted that the destination station of 1^st ticket and train originating station of other tickets was not same and they were different station. He prayed for quashing of the impugned order.

10.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

11.            Admittedly, the complainant alongwith his wife travelled in a train, Garib Rath, from Bhagalpur to Anand Vihar on 13.05.2014, which reached Bhagalpur Station 5 hours late and the said train further reached 8 hours late at Anand Vihar Station, which is reflected at page No.4 of District Forum file, due to which, he missed his next train from New Delhi to Chandigarh, for which, he had already purchased the tickets, in advance. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant requested the Station Master for permitting him to board some other train, so that he could reach Chandigarh, but he refused the same and, as such, he and his wife again purchased fresh Second Class (General) tickets to reach Chandigarh.

12.            The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. The answer, to this question, is in the affirmative. As per the appellants/Opposite Parties, the District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint, because the cause of action arose at New Delhi, where the complainant missed the train. A bare perusal of page No.4 of the District Forum file shows that the complainant booked the tickets at Chandigarh for him and his wife in Train No.22405, Garib Rath from Bhagalpur to Anand Vihar. Since, the tickets were booked at Chandigarh, a part of cause of action, arose to the complainant, within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. The District Forum, thus, had got territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.  So, we are of the considered opinion that the objection, taken by the appellants/Opposite Parties, in this regard, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 

13.            The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum rightly awarded compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The answer, to this, is in the affirmative. As per the appellants/Opposite Parties, journey of the complainant was from Bhagalpur to Anand Vihar without connectivity of  the  same   from  New  Delhi  to  Chandigarh.     It is evident from record (at page No.4 of District Forum file) that the complainant booked two tickets of train No.22405, Garib Rath, from Bhagalpur to Anand Vihar, which reached Bhagalpur Station 5 hours late and the said train further reached 8 hours late at Anand Vihar Station, due to which, he missed his next train from New Delhi to Chandigarh. The Station Master, Anand Vihar Terminal, duly certified the said document that Train No.22405 of date 14.05.2014 arrived at ANVT 16/25 hrs. on date 14.05.2014 8 hrs. late. It is also evident from page No.5 of the District Forum file that the tickets were booked by the complainant, in advance, for journey from New Delhi to Chandigarh for the sum of Rs.390/- and the departure time was 11:30 and arrival time was 15:45. It is also evident from page No.5 of the District Forum file that the complainant purchased another ticket from New Delhi to Chandigarh on 14.05.2014. Moreover, it is clear from the record that train No.22405 was late by 8 hours, which was duly certified by the Station Master of Anand Vihar Terminal, due to which, the complainant could not catch the next train, which was booked by him, in advance, from New Delhi to Chandigarh and, thus, purchased another ticket from New Delhi to Chandigarh, which caused a lot of harassment to him and his wife. We are of the considered opinion that the District Forum rightly held that when the complainant already paid the amount, in advance, for the tickets for his convenience, but he could not catch the train for Chandigarh in time, due to fault on the part of Railways. He requested the Station Master for some arrangement for another train, who refused to do so, and, as such, he (complainant) bought two more fresh tickets again.  We feel that it was the duty of the Railway Department to provide some help to the complainant for reaching his destination, in the circumstances explained above, but the said Department did not bother and, as such, due to the act and conduct of the appellants/Opposite Parties, he (complainant) had suffered a lot of physical harassment and mental agony. He also spent some amount for purchasing another set of tickets, inspite of advance booking resulting into financial loss to him. So, we are of the considered opinion, that the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the appellants as Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway Ambala Division Vs. Pawan Kumar Prasher, Appeal Case No.432 of 2009, decided by this Commission on 11.11.2009, Union of India & Anr. Vs. Smt.Niva Agrawal, Advocate, Revision Petition No.85 of 2013, decided by the National Commission on 04.03.2014, Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 20.10.2009 and State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1623, are of no help to him, as the facts of these cases are totally distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand.

14.            Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the District Forum was right, in allowing the complaint, as stated above.   Hence, the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

16.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

01.04.2015                                                         Sd/-         

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

rb

 

                                      STATE COMMISSION

FIRST APPEAL No. 71 of 2015

(Station Master, New Delhi Railway Station & Anr. Vs. Nazim Ahamed)

Argued by: Sh.Sunil K.Sahore, Advocate for the                                       applicants/appellants.

 

Dated _the  1^st   day of  April, 2015

                                                -.-

                   Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 17 days as per the applicants/appellants (as per the office report 16 days), in filing the appeal, has been filed.

                Heard.

                For the reasons stated, in the application, which is supported by a duly sworn affidavit and finding sufficient cause, the delay aforesaid is condoned.

                The application is disposed of accordingly.

                Arguments in the main appeal heard.

                        Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, and the order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

 

[DEV RAJ] MEMBER

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD)] PRESIDENT

[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER