DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 75/2017
Date of Institution : 7.6.2017
Date of Decision : 09.03.2018
Vinay Kumar Garg son of Rishi Kumar Garg resident of House No. B V 1611, Sandhu Patti, Barnala, Tehsil & District Barnala (Punjab).
…Complainant
Versus
Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi through its General Manager.
Station Superintendent, Northern Railway, Railway Station, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala (Punjab).
Station Superintendent, Northern Railway, Railway Station, Sriganganagar, Tehsil and District Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: Sh. J.K. Kapil counsel for the complainant.
Sh. N.K. Singla counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT)
The complainant namely Vinay Kumar Garg has filed the present complaint against Northern Railway & others (hereinafter called the opposite parties). It is alleged that complainant is employed with Punjab & Sind Bank Branch Sekha District Barnala as an officer and he had purchased to and fro journey tickets online in Air Conditioned Chari Car from Barnala to Sriganganagar for 18.4.2017 by Train No. 14525 and return journey from Sriganganagar to Barnala for 19.4.2017 by Train No. 14526. The tickets/seats in air condition chair car were confirmed online and he paid Rs. 330/- per ticket and in total paid Rs. 660/-.
2. It is further alleged that on 18.4.2017 the complainant started his journey from Barnala to Sriganganagar by Train No. 14525 and reached there. The complainant after attending a marriage function was to return to Barnala on 19.4.2017 by Train No. 14526. However, the opposite parties suo-moto changed the traveling class from Air Conditioned Chair Car to Ordinary 2nd Class Chair Car. It was hot season and he was helpless to travel by 2nd Class Chair Car while he had paid for Air Conditioned Chair Car and had confirmed booking. On this, the complainant contacted the Station Master at Sriganganagar, but he stated that he was helpless. Then the complainant contacted the Guard of the Train and he directed the complainant to contact the Train Ticket Examiner (TTE), who told that the Chart is prepared by the staff at Computer room and he could not help the complainant. As such, it is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking following reliefs:-
To pay Rs. 230/- the difference of fare between AC Chair Car and 2nd Class Ordinary Chair Car.
To pay Rs. 90,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 filed joint written version taking legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and as per provisions of Sections 13 (1)(b) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 all claims regarding refund of fare or part thereof are only maintainable before the Railway Claims Tribunal and jurisdiction of this Forum is barred under Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. On merits, the purchasing of online tickets in Air Conditioned Chair Car from Barnala to Sriganganagar by Train No. 14525 on 18.4.2017 and from Sriganganagar to Barnala by Train No. 14526 on 19.4.2017 is admitted. It is denied that the opposite parties suo-moto changed the traveling class from Air Conditioned Chair Car to Ordinary Second Class Chair Car. It is further submitted that memo dated 18.4.2017 regarding damage of vehicle stock (DVS) with respect to Coach No. 13158 NRCZAC of Train No. 14525/26 DN running over due internal overhauling (IOH), was received from Senior Section Engineer, Washing Line and keeping in view the safety of passengers, the said AC Coach was not fitted in Train No. 14525/26 DN on 19.4.2017 and a notice/chart was displayed at Sri Ganganagar on 19.4.2017 that the passengers booked in the said Coach had been provided accommodation in Coaches mentioned against their names and if the alternative accommodation is not accepted to them, they were allowed full refund and inconvenience caused to them was regretted. An announcement to this effect was also made on 19.4.2017 at Sri Ganganagar Station and the seat of the complainant was confirmed in Coach D-1 and he never claimed any refund, rather traveled from Sri Ganganagar to Barnala alongwith some other passengers, whose seats were also changed to Coach D-1 and D-2 due to non availability of Air Conditioned Chair Car in the said Train. All other allegations of the complainant are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of messages Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
5 To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Promila Gupta Senior Divisional Operations Manager Ex.O.P1.2.3/1, copies of memo dated 18.4.2017 Ex.O.P1.2.3/2 and Ex.O.P1.2.3/3, copy of chart from Ambala Cantt to Sri Ganaganagar Ex.O.P1.2.3/4, copy of chart from Sri Ganganagar to Ambala Ex.O.P1.2.3/5, copies of Train Signal Register at Sri Ganganagar Ex.O.P1.2.3/6 and Ex.O.P1.2.3/7, copy of order dated 19.10.2016 Ex.O.P1.2.3/8 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
7. Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant booked train tickets online in Air Conditioned Chari Car from Barnala to Sriganganagar for 18.4.2017 by Train No. 14525 and return journey from Sriganganagar to Barnala for 19.4.2017 by Train No. 14526 and the tickets/seats in air condition chair car were confirmed online and complainant paid Rs. 330/- per ticket and in total paid Rs. 660/-. On 18.4.2017 the complainant has gone from Barnala to Sri Ganganagar and reached there and when he was return to Barnala by Train No. 14526, the opposite parties suo-moto changed the traveling class of the complainant from AC Chair Car to Ordinary Second Class Chair Car. So, the complainant was compel to travel through Second Class Chair Car in the hot season in the month of April.
8. Counsel for the opposite parties has argued that due to some defect in the compartment, the same has not been allowed with the Train No. 14526 on 19.4.2017 and in this regard notice/chart was displayed at Sri Ganganagar Station on 19.4.2017 in Train No. 14526 that the passengers booked in the said Coach had been provided accommodation in coaches mentioned against their names and if the alternative accommodation is not accepted to them, so they are allowed to full refund and inconvenience caused to them was regretted. Counsel for the opposite parties further argued that all claims regarding refund of fare or part thereof are only maintainable before the Railway Claims Tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred.
9. The opposite parties have given the SMS regarding confirmation of booking but intimation regarding cancellation of AC Coach has not given through SMS. If the opposite parties sent intimation through SMS for confirmation of booking then why they have not sent the SMS regarding cancellation of AC Coach. No other intimation was also given to the complainant regarding the withdrawal of AC Coach and only chart which is Ex.O.P1.2.3/5 has produced, where it has been written that the passengers booked in this Coach have been provided accommodation in Coaches mentioned against their names and the Chair Car was provided to the complainant in Coach D-1, which is a Second Class Ordinary Coach not the AC Coach. The complainant come to know this fact only when he reached the station to board the Train and at that time he was no option except to board the Train because he has to reach Barnala because he is Bank employee and has to join his duty on the next day morning. Due to this the complainant was compelled to travel in a ordinary coach in a hot season in the month of April.
10. The opposite parties have relied upon in 2011 (3) CLT Page 1 in which it has been observed that claims regarding refund of fare or part thereof are only maintainable before the Railway Claims Tribunal. But this authority is not applicable in the present case because this is not a case only to refund of rail fare. But this is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Rather the opposite parties have failed to render the service as per traveling agreement. The complainant has relied upon I (2014) CPJ 374 (NC) in which it has been mentioned that prior intimation was not given, the opposite party should have at least been careful and made an attempt to have sent SMS. In IV (2014) CPJ 559 (NC) it has been observed “Cancellation of train- intimation not given- mental agony and harassment- deficiency in service”.
11. Section 3 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is as under:-
“Act not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”
12. So, after such a harrowing experience, the passenger i.e. complainant filed a complaint before this Forum. We are of the opinion that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties because they have failed to intimate the complainant well within time and he was compelled to travel in Second Class Chair Car despite the payment for AC Coach.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 230/- as excess fare to the complainant. We further directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 15,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation to the complainant. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
9th day of March 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
