Haryana

Panchkula

cc/257/2014

Er.ADARASH KUMAR JAIN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICE NORTHERN RAILWAYS. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

12 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                     

Consumer Complaint No	:	257 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	04.12.2014
Date of Decision	:	12.03.2015

Er.Adarsh Kumar Jain, Electricity Ombudsman (Haryana), Bays No.33-36, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

1.         Public Relations Office Northern Railway, NDRC Building, State Entry Road, New Delhi.

2.         Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., B 148, 11^th Floor, Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                                                            ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:                    Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                  Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Complainant in person. 

Ms.Veena Bhutani, Adv., for the Op No.1.

Mr.Vivek Kaidyan, Adv., for the OP No.2.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that in the evening of 20.06.2014, he booked two seats from Chandigarh to Delhi on train No.12006 Shatabdi Express for 21.06.2014 morning vide PNR No.2460372064 and the payment of tickets was debited from the bank account of the complainant. The complainant was allotted wait listed Nos.36 & 37. In the morning of 21.06.2014, when the complainant alongwith his wife reached Chandigarh Railway Station, he found from the reservation chart that he has not been allotted seats as wait listed booking was beyond 70. The complainant contacted Assistant Station Master who told that confirmations were done on the recommendations of the ministers and thus, seniority was broken. The complainant and his wife had to face lot of problems as they have to reach Delhi in emergency by bus on account of serious illness of his father-in-law. After return, the complainant checked up from IRCTC through e-mail who informed that on the request of the complainant, the booking has been cancelled which was a wrong statement as the complainant had never cancelled the booking at all. The complainant lodged a complaint on the Indian Railways portal on 27.06.2014 vide complaint No.W/NR/UMB/000036174 to investigate the matter and give clarifications as to why the reservation of the complainant was cancelled and the persons who much junior to the complainant, were allotted the seats. But the complainant has not received any response and he lodged a fresh complaint on 19.09.2014 vide complaint No.W/NR/UMB/000041857 stating that his original complaint dated 27.06.2014 has not been attended and request for a compensation of Rs.5000/- for causing mental agony, harassment & not replying to his complaint for the last about 3 months. On 23.09.2014, the complainant received an SMS from Indian Railway and he was informed that his complaint has been attended & now the same was closed. The complainant immediately replied to Indian Railway through SMS on their telephone No.9717630982 that “Sir my complaint reference No.W/NR/UMB/000036174 and W/NR/UMB/000041857 have not been replied. But, I received SMS that complaint has been resolved and closed. No clarification has ever been received by me”. The SMS of the complainant was acknowledged by Indian Railway and allotted fresh complaint No.S/NR/DY-Secy/000034401 with the intimation that they would revert after due investigation. On 17.10.2014, the Indian Railway replied through SMS that “In reference to your complaint No.W/NR/UMB/000036174/S/R.DCM/UMB has replied on dated 23.09.2014 that matter was investigated and found that your waiting tickets were not confirmed & tickets having waiting upto 70 was cleared in VIP quota & E-tickets were cancelled automatically, if they were in waiting list”. The seats of the complainant were cancelled by the Ops only to accommodate the junior persons which act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. In reply, Op No.1 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 has no concern for booking/reservation; cancellation and confirmation of seats in the train and no cause of action has arisen against the Op No.1. It is submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the office of Ops does not locate within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is submitted that the complaint of the complainant is barred under Section 13 & 15 of Indian Railways Act as the remedy was to be provided under Indian Railway Act. It is submitted that the complainant booked tickets on 20.06.2014 at 19:22 hrs for the journey for 21.06.2014 in the train No.12006 in chair car and he was allotted running waiting list RLWL91 & RLWL92. It is submitted that after preparation of chart, the complainant’s tickets waiting came RLWL32 & RLWL33 as 31 waitlist passengers who got reservation in the train prior to the complainant could not get their reservation confirmed. It is submitted that as per the policy of IRCTC regarding E-ticket, the ticket which was not confirmed after preparation of chart, automatically dropped by the system and the refund amount of the tickets was credited in the account of the passenger without any prejudice. It is submitted that as per waiting list chart, the last running waiting list passenger confirmed by the computer system was No.39. It is submitted that the complainant must had checked the status of waiting list and there was no question for coming to railway station in the morning of 21.06.2014 as his seats were not confirmed. It is submitted that no seniority was broken by the Ops. It is submitted that few passenger’s seats were confirmed in HO quota but their waiting list, position list, seniority number was up and above than the complainant. It is submitted that the tickets of the complainant were cancelled on 22.06.2014 at 13:50 hers i.e. one day later of departure of train, on account of non-confirmation of seats after preparation of the chart and the permissible amount was refunded to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant misquoted waiting list No.36 & 37 although his waiting list number was 91 & 92 at the time of purchase of tickets, which were not confirmed after chart preparation. It is submitted that waiting list was cleared and seats were confirmed as per seniority basis and there was no discrimination on the part of Ops. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In reply, the Op No.2 filed written statement and denied that the complainant filed the complaint against the Indian Railway & IRCTC regarding cancellation of the reservation arbitrarily or putting the complainant under any physical, mental or financial hardship. It is submitted that the complainant booked tickets Ex. Chandigarh to Delhi in chair car by Shatabdi Express Train No.12006 dated 21.06.2014 vide PNR No.2460372064 in the name of Adarsh Jain M-61 & Renu Jain F-59 on payment of Rs.755/- as ticket fare + Rs.22.47 as service charges. It is submitted that the status of ticket was in waiting list at the time of booking which remained in waiting list ever after preparation of the chart. It is submitted that the system dropped the name of the complainant after charting and refund the amount of Rs.685/- in the account of the complainant as per provision of Railway Refund Rules. It is submitted that IRCTC & Indian Railway are two different entities and IRCTC only provides access to Railway Passengers Reservation System through its server and internet connectivity to book the ticket. It is submitted that the allocation of seats/berths is managed by Indian Railways and IRCTC has not role in it. It is submitted that the Assistant Station Master is an employee of Op No.1 and not of Op No.2. It is denied that IRCTC gave any wrong information to the complainant for which the complainant had to lodge a complaint on Indian Railway Portal on 27.06.2014 vide No.W/NR/UMB/000036174. It is submitted that the Op No.2 has no knowledge of the complaint made by the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Ops No.1 and 2.
5. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/6 and closed the evidence. Similarly, the counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A alongwith document Annexure R2/1 and closed the evidence.
6. We have given our careful thought to the material available on the file in its relatability to the presentation made during the course of hearing.
7. In the scheme of things under the Consumer Protection Act, the averments made in the course of the affidavits filed by the parties in support of their plea, are determinative of the matter subject, of course, to the averments being buttressed by documentation to prove it.
8. In the present case, the complainant has made a precise averment that the two bookings done by him (for self and his wife) were wait-listed at Sr. No.36-37. As against it, the reply filed by the OPs No.1 and 2 indicate that the reservation done by the complainant was wait-listed at Sr. No.91 and 92 on the date of booking and that the number came down to 31 and 32 at the time of preparation of the chart. The reply filed by the OPs would appeared to take up a plea that no passenger junior in the wait-listed category had been allotted a seat. However, that averment is falsified by an averment in the rejoinder that the booking wait-listed at No.70 too had been granted confirmation. There is nothing on record on behalf of the OPs to controvert it.
9. The cue to the controversy is, even otherwise, to be found in the e-mail exchanged between the parties. In the course of Annexure-C1, the complainant had made a grievance of the fact that he had been informed that the booking had been cancelled on his request whereas, in fact, no such request had been made by him. The grievance aforementioned was reiterated by the complainant vide e-mail Annexure-C2. The customer care (Internet Ticketing wing of the IRCTC) informed the complainant that the booking had “been cancelled successfully as per your request”. The complainant has made a concrete challenge to the factual accuracy of that averment. If there was even an iota of truth in the averment made by the OPs, there is no reason why they would not have produced the relevant documentation indicating a request by the complainant for the cancellation of the booking. For want of even a rebuttal of the averment, much less proof in support thereof, the OPs are found to be on an indefensible wicket.
10. The facts noticed in the course of the preceding paras show the working of the railway department in very poor light. Without at all going into the placement occupied by the complainant, we hasten to add that each citizen has a fundamental right to be treated alike. As we do not have the locus to question the validity or otherwise of the quota for certain categories, we are not competent to go into that aspect i.e. whether the denial of confirmed booking could have come about because of the allotment of seats to the reserved category. All that we are concerned is that the OPs have not been able to prove that the cancellation of booking had been done on the own request of the complainant. The OPs have further not been able to controvert the averment by the complainant that wait-listed juniors including a booking wait-listed at No.70 had been provided confirmation.
11. For the reasons recorded in the earlier part of this order, we allow this complaint and direct as under: -

      a)         OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental torture and agony undergone by him due to the deficiency in service proved on the part of the former.

      b)         OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.

The liability to make the payment shall be joint and several of the OPs inter-se.

12. The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to it comes about. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

12.03.2015                            ANITA KAPOOR                             DHARAM PAL

                                                MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

     

                                         

                                                                        ANITA KAPOOR

                                                            MEMBER