DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.547/2010

Sh. Nand Kishor

R/o 36/228

Trilokpur, Delhi-110091                                           ….Complainant

Versus

Divisional Rail Manager

Northern Railway

Baroda House,

New Delhi                                                                  ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      : 16.08.10     Date of Order            :   12.07.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that he alongwith his wife booked 2 tickets from Delhi to Chandigarh in Jan Shatabdi Train on 03.10.2008 for the journey on 04.10.08. When they reached the railway station they were surprised to see that seats No.99 & 100 allotted to them in coach D-9 were not existing in the coach as the last seat in the coach was 81.  They were standing in the coach and neither any TTE came for checking nor the complainant could move to another coach because the coach was next to the engine and after that the A.C. coach was there and these coaches were not interconnected.  The complainant’s wife had a problem in the backbone and she had to stand while travelling and she felt vomiting and fever. They got the seat at Ambala that too after requesting the OP.  The complainant gave a written complaint on 04.11.08 to the Railway Authorities.  He received a reply from the OP stating that there was some discrepancy in their system and the passengers were accommodated in some other coach. As complainant was not satisfied with the reply of OP he sent a letter dated 09.03.09 to the OP.  He received a reply from the OP on 15.04.09 wherein the OP mentioned that now “the system is working fine.” Hence, the act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant has filed the complaint for directing the OP to pay compensation Rs.70,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigations to the complainants.

          In the written statement OP has inter-alia stated that as per sections 13 & 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, the Act) the jurisdiction of the Fora established under the Consumer Protection Act is barred.  The sole jurisdiction to try the complaint would be Railway Claims Tribunal. The affected parties or the complainants must approach the Railway Administration under the Railway Claims Tribunal for any loss whatsoever.  It is submitted that the Jan Satabdi is a prime train with sufficient railway staff including one TTE at coaches who are always available in the train. The complainant failed to make any complaints in this regard to the Railway administration after reaching their destination or even after some reasonable period.  The complainant filed the complainant after a delay of 1 month and failed to mention any reason whatsoever for such delay. It is submitted that due to sudden technical fault and discrepancies in the software of computer reservation system, the system accepted the old profile wherein a coach had over 108 seats and, therefore, the complainant was allotted seat No.99 and 100 in D-9 coach.  The passengers booked against the seats which were not actually available in D-9 coach were accommodated in D-8 coach by the Railway Administration. The complainants were allotted different seats in D-8 coach. It is submitted that the complainants failed to file any medical documents to substantiate the alleged medical problem.  The complainants have not filed any proof that they got seats only at Ambala station. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OP which tantamounts to unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainants are not entitled to get any compensation.  OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. He has also filed the affidavit of his wife Smt. Prem Lata. On the other hand, affidavit Sh. Upjeet Singh, Deputy C.C.M/D.B. IRCA Reservation, Centre Office, New Delhi has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. 

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.

It is not in dispute that the complainants booked tickets from Delhi to Chandigarh in Jan Shatabdi Train on 03.10.2008 for the journey on 04.10.08.  Admittedly, the complainant filed the complaint with the OP vide complaint dated 04.11.08 which we mark as Annexure-1 for the purpose of proper identification (the document is wholly illegible and beyond reading). OP vide letter dated 13.02.09 inter alia informed the complainant that “ some discrepancies arised in the software of computer reservation system. The passenger booked against the seats not physically available were accommodated in coach No. D-8……. Since no fault of the ticket checking staff has been established, therefore, no action against the staff is solicited. However, any inconvenience  caused to you is deeply regretted.” The complainant was not satisfied with the reply of the OP. He sent a letter dated nil to the OP which we mark as Annexure-3 for the purposes of identification.  The OP vide letter dated 15.04.09 informed the complainants that “ matter has been got investigated which reveals that now all the coaches are being manned by the staff Chandigarh station.” We mark the same as Annexure-4 for the purposes of proper identification.

It is clear from the above letters that due to some discrepancy which had arisen in the software of computer reservation system, the complainant and his wife had been issued seats Nos. 99 and 100 in coach No.D-9. However, there is no material on the record to show that the complainant and his wife were provided seats in another coach at Ambala Rly. Station only. When the other passengers who were allotted seat numbers beyond 81 in coach No.D-9 were allotted seats in coach No.D-8 at Delhi Rly. Station, there is no reason to believe that the complainants were not allotted alternative seats at Delhi. However, it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant for causing mental pain and agony to him within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which  OP shall become liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

 Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 12.07.17.