Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 3553 of 1999

1- Divisional Railway Manager, Northern

    Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

2- General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda

    House, Head Quarter, New Delhi.

3- Station Superintendant, Northern Railway,

    Charbagh, Lucknow.                                      …Appellants.

Versus

Rahul Shukla s/o Shri Ram Udit Shukla

Ram Udit Shukla s/o ate Jagannath Prasad

S.S. Shukla s/o Chandra Dhar Shukla

Km. Priya Shukla d/o Shri S.S. Shukla

R/o House No.4, Panchbati River Bank

Colony, Lucknow.                                         .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri P.P. Sriastava, Advocate for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

Date  10.8.2021

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member- This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 15.2.1999 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow in complaint case no.817 of 1994.

          The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the ld. District Forum has passed the impugned order arbitrarily and without applying the mind. The complainant made a complaint on 20.6.1994 for refund of difference between the fare charged for New Delhi to Puri and Lucknow to Puri and consequential

(2)

compensation of Rs.10000.00 and mental harassment was clearly covered by the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, so this is covered under section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act and no other authority has jurisdiction to try such cases. The ld. District Forum has committed error of law apparent on the face of record by not taking into consideration the copy of ticket produced by the complainant, the basis of the cause of action which indicated the particulars of journey both in English and Hindi and clearly indicated that it was issued from New Delhi to Puri and not merely in English as alleged by the complainant, on account of which the complainant could not decipher the particulars of journey printed on the ticket. Because the ld. District Forum further committed an error of law which too is apparent from the record by not considering the back portion of the ticket where it was printed both in English and Hindi as “ensure that your journey particulars are printed on the ticket are correct.” The same thing is written in Hindi also. The mistake in issuing ticket with print of journey from Delhi to Puri and charging for the same was not an intentional act and was correctable, if pointed out by the complainant soon after purchasing the same or later on without any deduction and or charging for the same. The complainant can not be allowed to say that there is deficiency on the part of the appellant. If we take it on face value that Sri Rahul Shukla was suffering from disability, the other two male members being admittedly advocates, what was the explanation of the other two male persons as to why did they not check the particulars of journey printed on the ticket. Rahul Shukla was himself

(3)

carrying on business of running taxies etc. so he could not be absolved himself from not checking the journey particulars printed on the ticket when they were available in Hindi. The impugned order is vitiated and liable to be set aside only on the ground that the ld. District Forum did not consider this aspect of the matter viz. the condition/warning printed on the ticket and not checked by the complainant which would have avoided the alleged inconvenience caused to them by their own carelessness as on their own pointing of the mistake, ticket would have been corrected much in advance of the journey. There is no deficiency in service. The filing of complaint was an abuse of law. The ticket was printed in English and Hindi. The ld. District Forum did not give any reason for paying Rs.5000.00 as compensation. The complaint was not maintainable against the appellants. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.2.1999 is liable to be set aside.

We have heard ld. Counsel for appellant Sri P.P. Srivastava. The respondent’s counsel did not turn up though service on the respondent has been held sufficient on 3.5.2018.

We have perused the records.

The complaint has been filed by four complainants. The complainant sought reservation from Lucknow to Puri  and the reservation clerk issued ticket no.00918952, PNR no.110216 for Rs.697.00. The date of journey was 31.5.1994. When they reached at the station on 31.5.1994, the concerned ticket clerk told them that this reservation is from New Delhi to Puri, hence, they did not travel from Lucknow to Puri and

(4)

it caused great hardship to the complainant. The complainant Rahul Shukla is handicapped and retarded. Because the train was coming hence, they reached on the spot reservation counter then they felt their mistake and they wrote a memo for adjusting the complainant. He sent a ticket collector with the complainant but he did not contact ticket collector of the said coach. After departure the TT came and told the complainant to vacate the seats because they were allotted against RAC.  The complainant gave the memo but the ticket collector did not consider it and only one berth no.52 was given to them. It caused great hardship and mental agony to the complainant. They filled the reservation slip for ticket for Lucknow to Puri but they were given ticket from New Delhi to Puri. The complainants include one handicapped, one advocate suffering from heart disease, one advocate being senior citizen and one girl of intermediate, all suffering a lot. The complainant moved an application on 20.6.1994 to DRM, Northern Railway, Hazratganj and General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi for paying compensation but they did not pay any attention. After that the complaint has been filed before the District Forum.

The ld. District Forum considered all these facts and awarded the complaint partially. Aggrieved by it, the present appeal has been preferred.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an act for benefit of the consumers and it is not in derogation but in addition to any other Act. If there is relation of consumer and service provider, he can file a suit before the Consumer Fora. The appellants have accepted their mistake for not issuing the

(5)

proper ticket to the complainants and it is clear that out of four complainants only one was given a berth rest three were not adjusted and they suffered a lot. It is useless to say that it is the duty of ticket holder to check the ticket before travelling. If it is so then what was the duty of the ticket clerk sitting on the reservation counter ? When a reservation slip has been filled and sought reservation from Lucknow to Puri, what was the reason to issue reservation ticket from New Delhi to Puri. So, the railway cannot deny their mistake in the garb of complainant’s carelessness. Hence, in this case, we are of the opinion that there is clear fault on the part of the railway and appellants and the complainant suffered a lot and the judgment and order of the ld. District Forum is according to law and there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment and order. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

          Appeal is dismissed.

          The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.       

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Jafr, PA II

Court 3

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Rajendra Singh)                              (Sushil Kumar)

     Presiding  Member                                    Member

Jafr, PA II

Court 3