DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC.No.14 of 16.01.2009<br /> Decided on: 12.11.2009<br /> <br /> Yashpal son of Shri Hardwari Lal C/o Yash Traders, Tailor Chowk, Rampura Phul, Distt. Bathinda.<br /> …..Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Northern Railway, Ambala Division, Ambala, through its Divisional Manager.<br /> 2. Station Master, Bathinda Railway Station, Bathinda.<br /> 3. Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, 9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, XVI, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001, through its Managing Director.<br /> 4. North-West Railway, Bikaner Division, Bikaner, through its Divisional Manager.<br /> …….Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K.S. Sidhu, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties <br /> Nos. 2 to 4.<br /> Sh. Sudhir Goyal, counsel for opposite party <br /> No.3.<br /> Opposite party No.1 already deleted.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. George, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGER, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against the opposite parties that on 04.11.2008, he got reserved four berths in Sleeper Class of 339/ABS JU Passenger train, running between Bathinda to Bikaner Jn. for undertaking journey on 10.11.2008. On 10.11.2008, he alongwith his wife and other two ladies family members reached at Bathinda railway station well before the scheduled departure of the train at 21:30 hours, but to his utter surprise, coach No. S1 was not attached with the train. He approached opposite party No.2 to do the needful, and make some alternative arrangements in other reserved compartments of the train, so as to enable him and his relatives to undertake the journey, but opposite party No.2 refused to help him. He alongwith his wife and other two ladies family members could not get a seat to sit during their journey from Bathinda to Bikaner Jn, and they had to travel by standing, and had to face great inconvenience. He got reserved the berths in the said train well in advance for journey to be performed on 10.11.2008, but due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties, he and his three female relatives had to suffer. One of his relative Kamlesh was suffering from knee and joint pain, but since she had to travel from Bathinda to Bikaner in the train by standing, as such she fell ill and had to remain bed ridden for many days. The complainant has, thus claimed for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for suffering, undergone by him and his three ladies family members, by travelling from Bathinda to Bikaner, and also claimed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties contested the allegations. Opposite party No.4, who was responsible for providing a sitting coach, in which seats were reserved by the complainant. Opposite parties raising objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action; complainant is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present complaint; complaint is not maintainable, as there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and complaint is filed on false and frivolous facts.<br /> 3. On merit also while denying all the allegations of the complainant, opposite party No.4 has submitted that Sleeper Coach (GSCN) could not be attached with the Train due to unavoidable circumstances. On 10.11.2008, there was no fit Sleeper Coach available in Lalgarh Yard, therefore, Sleeper Coach could not be attached with the train. However, the T.T.E., who was on duty in the said Coach, got the necessary announcement made at Bathinda Railway Station for convenience of the passengers to the effect that the passengers could travel in the sitting coach, as the Sleeper Coach could not be attached due to unavoidable circumstances. Further, the announcement was also made to the effect that the passengers could get the refund of fare without any deduction, if they so desired, but the complainant opted to travel at his own choice. Therefore, the complainant is estopped to file the present complaint. All the efforts were made, which could be made as an alternative arrangement.<br /> 3. Complainant in order to prove the allegations filed his own affidavit and other three ladies family member Smt. Kamlesh, Smt. Saroj and Smt. Nirmala affidavits dt. 21.08.2009 Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and also brought on record copies of Prescription Ex.C-5, Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11; copies of Lab. report Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-9; copy of OPD Ticket Ex.C-7; photo copy of Radiology report of P.G.I., Chandigarh Ex.C-8 and photo copy of reservation slip Ex.C-12.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite party No.3 filed affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Goyal, Area Officer, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh dt. 28.07.2009 Ex.R-1 and also brought on record notification dt. 24.05.2009 Ex.R-2. <br /> 5. Opposite parties No. 2&4 filed affidavit of Sh. Raju Bhutra, Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, North Western Railway, Bikaner, dt. 24.07.2009 Ex.R-7, and also brought on record, photo copy of Table Ex.R-3; copy of Rake link Ex.R-4; copy of letter dt. 26.02.2009 Ex.R-5; copy of letter dt. 08.04.2009 Ex.R-6; copy of letter dt. 20.03.2009 Ex.R-8; copy of letter dt. 14.03.2009 Ex.R-9; copy of letter of Rakesh Chander Sood Ex.R-10; affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Chander Sood, Head T.T.E. North Western Raiway, Bikaner, dt. 01.10.2009 Ex.R-11 and photo copies of C.B.G.N. hand fit coach at Lalgarh Ex.R-12 and Ex.R-13, respectively. Opposite party No.3 filed affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Goyal, Area Officer dated 27.08.2009 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, photo copy of Notification dated 24.05.2002 Ex.R-2, respectively.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. It is an admitted fact that four berths seats were reserved by the complainant on 04.11.2008 in Sleeper Class of 339/ABS JU Passenger Train for traveling on 10.11.2008, from Bathinda to Bikaner, against payment of Rs. 406/-. It is also an admitted fact that on 10.11.2008, when the complainant and his wife Nirmala and other two ladies relatives, namely Kamlesh and Saroj, could not found Coach S1, as it was not attached with the train. It has been admitted by opposite party No.4, who infact had to provide Coach S1 that due to unavoidable circumstances, Sleeper Coach could not be attached with the train on 10.11.2008. The defence of opposite parties including opposite party No.4 is that the T.T.E., who was on duty of the said Coach got the necessary announcement made at Bathinda Railway Station for the convenience of the passengers to the effect that the passengers could travel in the sitting coach, and it was also announced that the passengers could get the refund of the fare without any deduction, if they so desired, meaning thereby that opposite parties, who are running such a big organization, and maintain thousands of Compartments/Coaches could not provide a single Sleeper Coach, which itself amounts to deficiency in service. Single announcement for the passengers that the passengers could get the refund of fare without any deduction, if they so desire, is not sufficient to discharge their obligation towards consumers, who has spent a required amount, and got a seat reserved in the train for their travel on a particular date. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant has definitely not only suffered mental tension and harassment, but also a great inconvenience, for which the complainant has entitled a claimed amount for compensation. The contentions raised on behalf of opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable, and the complainant is estopped for filing the present complaint, because he opted to travel without Sleeper Coach to reach his destination, appears to be totally unsustainable for the reason that once the complainant and his three family members were put in a situation by the opposite parties due to their negligence, and deficiency in service by not attaching S1 Sleeper Coach with the train, the complainant was left with no other alternative, but to travel in other compartment under forced circumstances. The contentions raised on behalf of opposite parties that the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to take cognizance as the matter relates, and falls within the preview of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The arguments of the learned counsel, and also the law cited i.e. “Union of India & Another Vs. Som Parkash & Bros., IV (2206) CPJ 266. The facts and circumstances of the case were totally different, as it relates to non delivery of booked cartons to consignee, whereas the case of the complainant is totally on different footings.” Thus, contentions raised as referred to here-in-above on the part of the opposite parties, appears to be without any force.<br /> 8. After taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that complainant and his three ladies family members were put to unnecessary mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience on account of deficiency in service on part of opposite party No.4, and therefore, opposite party No.4 is liable to compensate the complainant reasonably and adequately. Under these circumstances of this case, we assess the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-, and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-. The complaint against opposite parties No.1 to 3 stands dismissed.<br /> 9. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 10. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 12.11.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br />