Haryana

Karnal

CC/323/2020

Jitender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

Jitender

05 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 323 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.28.08.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:05.07.2024

 

Advocate Jitender son of Shri Prem Chand resident of house no.904, Chaura Bazar, Karnal. Aadhar no.838923358640.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Northern Railway through its Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala.
2. Station Superintendent Northern Railway Karnal.
3. Northern Railway through its Divisional Railway Manager, Railway Colony, Paharganj, New Delhi, 110002.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

     

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Nitin Sehgal, counsel for the OPs.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased six travel tickets from Karnal (Haryana) to Manmar (J) Maharashtra, vide PNR no.220-5719058 and PNR no.253-4376768 on 24.12.2019 from the OP. The said tickets were booked through Tatkal system of the OP. The complainant alongwith his family members including (i) Shri Prem Chand (father) age 72 years (ii) Shri Bachan Singh (Father-in-law) age 60 years  (iii) Smt. Sunita Devi (mother-in-law) age 59 years, (iv) complainant age 35 years, (v) Smt. Soni Devi (wife of complainant) age 32 years (vi) Shri Tarsem (Cousin) brother of the complainant age 35 years for an amount of Rs.4590/-. The said amount was paid to the OP no.1 vide ticket no.56122621 dated 25.12.2019 for Rs.3060/- and vide ticket no.56122328 on 25.12.2019 for Rs.1530/-. All the six seats were duly confirmed by the OP in coach/Buggie no.S-2, seat no.33,36,41, 42,43 and 44. The aforesaid tickets were purchased for the train no.12716 Amritsar Nanded Express and the journey was fixed for 25.12.2019. The complainant alongwith the aforesaid family members duly reached at the Railway Station platform at about 10.00 a.m. on 25.12.2019 i.e. before one hour of the arrival time of the train. All the passengers /family members of the complainant duly boarded alongwith their luggage in Boggie/Coach marked as S-2, whereby it was revealed that the said Boggie/Coach was not of sleeper class rather a general Boggie/Coach was connected with the train instead of sleeper Boggie/Coach. The complainant contacted the concerned TTE official of the train who verbally told the complainant that the aforesaid Boggie/Coach has been connected with the train by mistake and further assured that the same shall be replaced at New Delhi Railway Station with a sleeper one. After reaching the New Delhi Station, the complainant alongwith his co-passengers at the coach/boggie raised a protest for replacement of the general Boggie/Coach with the sleeper Boggie/Coach and the train remained stopped for about 2-3 hours at New Delhi Railway Station due to the protest of the passengers. But none of the concerned officials of the OP department come present at the station and no arrangement for the replacement of general Boggie/ Coach with the sleeper Boggie/ Coach was made. As a result of which, complainant and his family members out of which three persons were senior citizen, had to travel from Karnal to Manmar i.e. near about a distance of 1400 km by sitting on the floor of the Boggie/Coach resulting a great harassment, humiliation, mental pain and agony.  The aforesaid train reached its destination i.e. Manmar Station after a delay of about 10-11 hours of its scheduled time. The complainant booked the aforesaid tickets by paying a valuable amount for a comfort journey but inspite of the same complainant as well as the other co-passengers had to face various discomfort during the journey.

2.             It is further alleged that complainant made a complaint to the Railway Administration online through its official website, but no action has been taken by the concerned authorities for the peaceful and comfortable journey of the complainant as well as co-passengers. In this way, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OPs  no.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has alleged that he and his family travelled in substandard coach and without any objections they travelled upto their destination by the alleged coach and he did not raise any demand to the authorities concerned at Manmar Railway Station (Maharashtra) and further he did not make clear that whether he has taken any refund of difference of fare of ticket or not or he made any attempt thereof. Railway is a transport organization and keeping in view the safety of the travelling passengers various measures to avoid accidents are taken and because of it trains often get late. As per complaint, the complainant has booked his ticket for travelling only. The complainant has completed his journey. The issue raised is substandard coach, but if the allegations are true even though option for not travelling and getting full refund of fare was available with the complainant and if in case of travelling in sitting coach even then the option of getting difference of fare at the destination station i.e. at Manmar station was available to complainant as per the Railway Rules. It seems that complainant has not used any of the above mentioned options and now using the Law for claiming the amount. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Learned counsel for the OPs suffered a statement to the effect that OP no.3 adopted the written version filed by OPs no.1 and  5.           Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of train tickets Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, copy of electronic Reservation slips Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, copy of Tweet Message Ex.C6, copy of reply from Indian Railway Seva Ex.C7, picture of Ecocardiography Ex.C8, copy of report of Ecocrdiography Report Ex.C9, copy of OPD slip Ex.C10, copy of lab report Ex.C11, copy of report and ultra picture Ex.C12, copy of lab reports Ex.C13 and Ex.C14, copy of coronary angiography report Ex.C15, copy of discharge summary Ex.C16, copy of treatment advise report Ex.C17, copy of Ecocardiography report Ex.C18, copy of colour Ecocardiography report Ex.C19, copy of OPD slip of Amritdhara Hospital Ex.C20 and Ex.C22, copy of OPD slip of Cygnus Hospital Ex.C21, CD Ex.C23 and closed the evidence on 27.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ravinder Preet Kaur Ex.RW1/A, copy of Section 15 Railway Claims Tribunal Act Ex.R1, copy of Rule 115 Indian Railway Conference Association Ex.R2, copy of Rules of Railway Administration Ex.R3, copy of Rule 306, Indian Railway Conference Association Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 04.10.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint has vehemently argued that on 24.12.2019, he booked six travel tickets from Karnal to Manmar(Maharashtra). He booked the said tickets for sleeper coach. On 25.12.2019, on the journey day, he alongwith other co-passenger boarded alongwith their luggage in Boggie/ coach as S-2 whereby it was revealed that Coach was not of sleeper class, rather it was a general class. He requested the employees of the OPs several times for change of the coach but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. He and his family members out of which three persons were senior citizens had to travel from Karnal to Manmar i.e. near about a distance of 1400 Kms by sitting on the floor of the coach on the general coach.  Due to this act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant and his family members have suffered a great harassment, humiliation, mental pain and agony and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant and his family members have travelled upto their destination without taking any objections. Complainant did not demand any refund of difference of fare of ticket. The issue raised is substandard coach, but if the allegations is true even though, option for not travelling and getting full refund of fare was available with the complainant and if in case of travelling in sitting coach even then the option of getting difference of fare at the destination station i.e. at Manmar station was available to complainant as per the Railway Rules and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

12.           On 24.12.2019, complainant purchased six travel tickets from Karnal to Manmar(Maharashtra) and paid Rs.4590/- to the OPs. The said tickets were booked for the sleeper coach and confirmed by the OPs, but the coach was not sleeper class rather it was general class coach. The said fact has not been denied by the OPs. Complainant requested repeatedly to the employees of the OPs to change the coach from general to sleeper class but employees of the OPs did not pay any attention to the request of the complainant.

 13.          Complainant alongwith his family members, out of which three persons were senior citizens had travelled from Karnal to Manmar for the distance approximately 1400 Kms in the general coach. They had paid the cost of sleeper coach and not for the general coach. It is not the case of the OPs that complainant had not purchased the tickets of the sleeper coach. Complainant would have purchased the tickets of sleeper coach while considering the health and age of his family members.

14.           OPs have alleged that complainant and his family members travelled and substandard coach without any objection upto there destination and they did not arrange any objections and demanded the difference of fare of tickets. We do not agree with the contentions of the OPs. Complainant and his family members completed their journey in compelling circumstances because they have no other way except to complete their journey. The complainant and his family members were extremely harassed by the OPs, thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           Now the question remains to be decided is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded to the complainant. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The amount sought by the complainant is on higher side, it would be justified, if an amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- be awarded to the complainant on account of compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and litigation expenses.

16.           In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment suffered by him and towards litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount is not paid by the OPs within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of the order till its realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated: 05.07.2024

                                                              President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       

                          Member