Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/1677

ABDUL KHURSHID - Complainant(s)

Versus

PASHCHIM MADHYA RAILWAY - Opp.Party(s)

SH. MUKESH SHRIVASTAVA

30 Jun 2023

ORDER

 

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 1677 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 06.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.62/2017 by the District Commission, Rajgarh)

                                                    

ABDUL KHURSHEED.                                                                                        …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

STATION SUPERINTENDENT, WESTERN

CENTRAL RAILWAY, INDORE JUNCTION

INDORE & ANOTHER.                                                                                        …         RESPONDENTS.

                                                                                                          

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI             :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY     :      MEMBER   

 

                                      O R D E R

30.06.2023

 

          Shri Mukesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri H. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajgarh (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.62/2017, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been dismissed as barred by limitation, the complainant has filed this appeal.

2.                The complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties-railways, regarding deficiency in service in cancelling the Kota Indore train on 28.07.2013, when he was coming from Indore to Bioara having ticket no. 61512799.

3.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order. 

-2-

4.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record as also the impugned order, we find that the complainant has stated in his complaint that he had purchased a railway ticket on 28.07.2013 for his journey from Indore to Bioara via Kota Indore Express, it ought to have been Indore Kota and not Kota Indore Express. It is alleged that the all of sudden at Maksi station the train was cancelled and all the passengers including him were forced to deboard the train as a result he had to incur expenses in reaching Bioara by hiring the vehicle. Therefore he filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.  

5.                Admittedly, the incident took place on 28.07.2013 and the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission on 13.04.2017 i.e. after a period of more than three years that is too without any application for condonation of delay under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6.                It is argued by learned counsel for the complainant/appellant that the complainant/appellant made correspondence with the Railways and they called him by giving intimation but no such correspondence has been filed by the complainant/appellant in this regard.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in Shankar Lal Khimsara & Anr Vs H. N. S. Coaches Pvt. Ltd. IV (2017) CPJ 133 (NC),

-3-

Bajaj Allianz General Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr Vs Krishna Devi IV (2015) CPJ 428 (NC) and Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam Bhilai Vs Rajesh Kumar Shukla III (2010) CPJ 112 (NC) and a decision of Union Territory, Chandigarh State Commission in Calcutta Construction Company Vs Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. III (2003) CPJ 40 in support of his contentions. The citations relied upon learned counsel for the appellant are regarding continuous cause of action but the facts of the case in hand are different and therefore the judgments are not benefitted to the complainant/appellant.

8.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hema Hitesh Shah & Anr Vs HDFC Bank Limited III (2022) CPJ 63 (NC) has held that action of communication between the parties after cause of action has arisen does not amount to cause of action starts running, it continues and remedy is to be sought within prescribed period of limitation.

9.                Admittedly, the cause of action arose on 28.07.2013 and the complaint filed on 13.04.2017 i.e. after a period of more than three years. If the complainant should have been vigilant he could have filed the complaint earlier but he did not bother to file any application under Section 24A seeking condonation of delay.

10.              In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to say that the complaint filed 13.04.2017 for the cause of action arose on

-4-

28.07.2013 and that too without an application for condonation of delay under Section 24A of the Act was manifestly barred by limitation and the District Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint holding that the complaint was barred by limitation.  Thus the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed.

11.              Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission calling interference in appeal.

12.              In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

                 (A. K. Tiwari)                         (Dr. Srikant Pandey)           

              Presiding Member                              Member