Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/75/2016

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

19 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	75/2016
Date of Institution	:	02.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	19/09/2016

 

                                       

                                               

Naresh Kumar r/o # 3424, Sector 25, Chandigarh & C/o Chamber No.11, District Courts, Sector 43, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Northern Railway, Railway Station, Chandigarh through Station Superintendent.

 

2.     Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt., Haryana through Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Manoj Kumar, Agent/Clerk Office of OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of Sh.Naresh Kumar, complainant(orthopedically handicapped) is that he is holder of identity card No.000264 valid from 24.08.2015 to 25.08.2020 issued by the OPs. As per the said identity card, he is entitled to get 50% concession while travelling in Indian Railways for himself and his escort.  He alongwith his escort was to travel from Chandigarh to Bikaner on 14.09.2015 and he showed his identity card for availing 50% concession prior to the issuance of the ticket but the booking clerk did not accept the card on the ground that the same was not entered in the computer system. He alleged that he paid the entire fare of Rs.175/- for self and his escort which is mandatory as mentioned on the card. It has further been averred that he had to spend Rs.350/- instead of Rs.175/- and as such he suffered a loss of Rs.175/- due to the negligence of the OPs. He requested the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.175/- but the same has not been refunded to him despite service of legal notice (Annexure C-3). Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, the OPs took a preliminary objection inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable in view of Sections 13 & 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. It was admitted that the complainant had purchased the ticket for journey from Chandigarh to Bikaner. It was denied that the complainant or his escort showed his identity card for concessional ticket. It was specifically denied that the booking clerk did not accept the card on the ground the same was not entered in the computer.  It was further pleaded that as per the version of the complainant himself, he spent only Rs.175/- for himself and his escort and not Rs.350/- as alleged and the same is also evident from Annexure C-2.  The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and Clerk/Agent of the OPs and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         Before coming to the merits of the case, it is to be decided first, as to whether, the complaint with regard to the refund of railway fare is maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not.
6.         On behalf of the OP, it has been contended that in view of Sections 13 & 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7.         For proper appreciation of the controversy in hand, Sections 13 & 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 reads as under:

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 Railway 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 Railway Administration for carriage by Railway;

(ii)    compensation payable under Section 82A 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 Railway Administration to be carried by railway.

15.   Bar of jurisdiction.—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.

 

8.         In view of the afore extracted provisions of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, this Forum  does not have any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in [sub-sections (1) and (1A)] of section 13 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.  
9.         In the instant case, the complainant has sought the refund of Rs.175/- towards the excess railway fare charged from him by the OPs.  However, in view of Sections 13 & 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, this Forum does not have necessary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and as such the same is not maintainable before this Forum.
10.         Here our view is also bolstered from the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission passed in Northern Railway through G.M., Northern Railway & Anr Vs.  Dr.N.K.Singla  reported in II (2016) CPJ 642 (NC) in which it was held as under:

6.        Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2010) CPJ 154 (NC), Northern Railway & Ors. v. Dau Dayal Chaturvedi; Revision Petition No. 3832 of 2010, Kacharu Lal Agrawal v. The General Manager, South East Central Railway; Revision Petition No. 1874 of 2012, Union of India & Ors. v. Yash Industries & Anr., I (2014) CPJ 175 (NC)=First Appeal No. 411 of 1996, Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Ramji Enterprises & Anr., in which it was held that such complaints are not maintainable before Consumer Fora in the light of bar created by Section 13 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. On the other hand respondent placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in his Revision Petition No. 931 of 2014, Addl. General Manager, Northern Railway v. Dr. N.K. Singla, in which order of District Forum and State Commission allowing refund of Rs. 320 was upheld. Perusal of aforesaid order reveals that question of law was left open. In the aforesaid revision petition case was only pertaining to refund of Rs. 320 and while disposing revision petition cost awarded was reduced from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 1,500. Respondent also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 4882 of 2013, Union of India & Anr. v. Susanta Kumar Saha, I (2014) CPJ 374 (NC), in which order allowing complaint was upheld and revision petition was dismissed and he further submitted that SLP filed against this order was dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court. Perusal of order of this Commission in aforesaid matter reveals that in that matter complainant did not claim refund of fare or part thereof so aforesaid case was not applicable to the present case. Not only this, Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed SLP at the initial stage without assigning any reasons. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that complaint filed by complainant for refund of excess amount was maintainable before Consumer Fora.

 

7.        Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 2.9.2014 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 252 of 2014, Northern Railway through G.M., New Delhi & Anr. v. Dr. N.K. Singla and order of District Forum dated 20th May, 2014 passed in Complaint No. 4 of 2014, Dr. N.K. Singla v. Northern Railway through G.M., New Delhi & Anr. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach Railway Claims Tribunal for Redressal of his grievance. Parties to bear their costs.

11.         The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
12.         For the reasons stated above, the present complaint is dismissed, being not maintainable, with liberty to the complainant to approach Railway Claims Tribunal for Redressal of his grievance, if any. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
13.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19.09.2016

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER