BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI
Consumer Complaint No. :52/2020 Date of Institution: 12.06.2020
Date of Decision : 13 .06.2022
Advocate R.N. Soni S/o Late Sh. Narain Singh, resident of House No. 266, Old H.B. Colony, Bhiwani (Haryana).
Versus
- Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Bhiwani Junction, Bhiwani. (Haryana).
- Divisional Railways Manager, Bikaner Railways Division, Bikaner
-
Complaint under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI VIJAY SINGH, PRESIDENT
MRS. HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER
Present: None for the complainant.
Sh. Mahipal Tanwar, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:
SHRI VIJAY SINGH, PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the respondents/Opposite Parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) with the submission that the complainant purchased a travelling ticket bearing Serial No.511686107 dated 07.03.2020 as Annexure C-1 from Bhiwani to Chandigarh, after paying prescribed fare to the OP/respondent no. 1. It is submitted that the cause of action has accrued, when the complainant was travelling by Train No.14717 Express from Bhiwani to Haridwar and tried to use the toilet inside the train’s compartment No. N.W. 04704/C SLRD but it was a surprise to the complainant that the supply of water was not available in all the three taps installed in the toilet of the aforesaid compartment.
2. It is further submitted that the OPs/respondents were duty bound to check the proper water supply in each and every compartment of the train, at a proper place of railway stations but in fact, they did not check the proper water supply in the toilets, when the train was on the way.
3. It is further submitted that the complainant is entitled for compensation for the gross negligence and deficiency in service as well as mental agony from the OPs. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the Ops to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for great deficiency and gross negligence on the part of OPs/respondents. Further, respondents/Ops be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000 for mental agony and utter harassment on the part of OPs/respondents.
4. Upon notice, the Ops/respondents appeared and filed the written statement contesting the present complaint. The OPs in their written statement denied the allegations of the complaint and took preliminary objections regarding suppression of material facts, maintainability, locus standi, complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties, territorial jurisdiction etc. and submitted that the complainant has not come with his clean hands and he has concealed the true facts from the Hon’ble Commission to take the illegal benefit of process of law and to harass and humiliate the OPs.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant purchased the travelling ticket as alleged in the complaint as no such evidence of proof in this regard has been provided to the OP/respondent. It is further submitted that the contents of para no. 2 of the complaint are denied as no evidence in this regard has been produced by the complainant and nor any complaint by any other passenger in the matter has been preferred/mentioned in this complaint book of Ticket Travelling Examiner as well as each station master of the station.
6. It is further submitted that all the train before departure from the destination station are properly inspected and proper maintenance and filing of water is ensured by the OPs staff. All the allegations leveled by the complainant are totally false and fictitious. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint has been sought by the OPs.
7. Complainant has tendered into evidence copy of ticket as Annexure C-1, copy of photos of compartment, tap Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has tendered in evidence affidavit of J.K. Gupta, Station Superintendent, Bhiwani as Exhibit RW1/A and closed the evidence.
8. As complainant failed to appear despite case called several times. Accordingly, we have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the Ops/respondents. The complainant has placed on record the written submissions and perusal of the same reveals that the main stress of the complainant was that when the complainant was travelling from Bhiwani to Chandigarh in train no.14717 Express from Bikaner to Haridwar, during his journey when he tried to use the toilet comprising apartment no.N.W.04704/C SLRD, he suffered inconvenience, mental agony and harassment as there was no water in the taps installed in the toilet of the said compartment. Whereas, the aforesaid submission has been refuted by the learned counsel for the OPs maintaining that first of all this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission as jurisdiction of this Commission is clearly barred to entertain the present complaint in view of Section 13, 15 & 18 of the Railway Claim Tribunal 1987 and only the Railway Claim Tribunal would have jurisdiction. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the OPs relied upon the judgment titled as Southern Railways Vs. N. Ramasekaran, 25-C, Andal dated 6.7.2011 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Chennai.
9. The next argument of the learned counsel for the OPs was that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint as the alleged incident did not take place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.
10. After hearing submission of the learned counsel of the OPs and perusal of the written submission of complainant, it is noticed that there is no dispute that on 7.3.2020 the complainant had purchased a Railway ticket bearing no.51686107 of general compartment for a sum of Rs.30/- which is placed on record as Annexure C-1. As per the complaint the ticket was from Bhiwani to Chandigarh but the train number in which he was travelling was 14717 Express from Bikaner to Haridwar. It is clear that the said train was not supposed to go upto Chandigarh Railway Station. Complainant did not mention in his complaint the place where he tried to use the toilet inside the train’s compartment No. N.W.04704/C SLRD. It is also not mentioned in the complaint where the cause of action for filing of this complaint arise to him. As per complainant the cause of action accrued when he was travelling in the said train from Bhiwani to Haridwar. This shows that complainant has drafted the complaint cleverly to make the jurisdiction of this Forum for not specifically mentioning the place of cause of action. The cause of action might have occurred at any specific place between Bhiwani to Haridwar but complaint is totally silent about this fact. It is not the case of the complainant that he tried to use the toilet repeatedly between Bikaner to Haridwar but all the time the water was not available in any of the tape of the said compartment. As this complaint has been filed under the Old Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Section 11 of the said act deals with jurisdiction of the District Forum which is reproduced here as under:-
11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum:-
(2) A complainant shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.
(a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carries on business or has a branch office or] personally works for gain, or
(b) Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office], or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office], or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; of
(c ) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
11. A bare perusal of the language of the Section 11, it is clear that the complainant shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the OP actually and voluntarily resides or personally works for gain. As discussed above, the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint the place where the cause of action arises, hence the complainant is totally silent to this effect. Complainant could have been in the jurisdiction of the Forum where the cause of action wholly or in part, arises or where the OPs resides or carries on business or personally works for gain or have a branch office. As office of the OP no. 1 is situated in Bhiwani, thus, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.
12. As far as the ruling Southern Railways Vs. N. Ramasekaran, 25-C, Andal dated 6.7.2011 decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Chennai relied upon by the counsel for OP is concerned. Though, in the reported case it is clearly mentioned that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum from entertaining the present complaint (as of that case) is clearly barred and only Railway Claim Tribunal would have jurisdiction but this ruling is not applicable upon the facts of the present case because in that case the matter was relating to refund of the excess amount of the ticket charged by TTE which the Railway Authority refused to refund, thus, the complaint was filed before this District Consumer Forum stating that he has been harassed due to deficiency of service for not refunding the excess fair ticket cost of Rs.565/-. As Section 13-B of the Railway Claim Tribunal specifically deals with the power of the tribunal in respect of the claim from refund of the fair. Thus, finding no merits in the submissions of learned counsel for the OPs it was held that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.
13. As this is not denied by the OPs that the complainant did not travel in the said train vide Ticket Annexure C-1 and it shows that the ticket was purchased by the complainant from the OP no. 1 i.e. from Bhiwani. Thus, undoubtedly complainant becomes the consumer of the OPs. Complainant has also placed on record photographs of the booking office as Annexure C-2 but it does not prove that the complainant travelled in the said compartment. It appears that the aforesaid photographs have been clickeds when the train was stationed at Railway Station. Moreover, complainant did not register the alleged complaint at any Railway Station or to the Station Master, which has allegedly happened with the complainant. Even he did not make any written complaint to the competent persons of the coach or to ticket examiner or in the complaint book available in coach. As per learned counsel for the OPs, if there was no water in the said compartment as alleged by the complainant then other passengers were also supposed to make such complaint to the competent authority or to the ticket examiner and in absence of such it is clear that complainant has filed this complaint by concealing the true & material facts to take the illegal benefit of the process of law. OP has clearly mentioned in their reply that no evidence in support of the alleged incident has been produced by the complainant and nor any such complaint was filed by any other passenger in the complaint book of Ticket Travelling Examiner as well as station master of any of the station. All the train before departure from the destination station are properly inspected and proper maintenance and filing of water is ensured by their respective staff and in the particular train all precautionary measures were adopted before departure from Bikaner to Haridwar on dated 6.3.2020, hence there is no evidence at all to prove the alleged deficiency or negligence on the part of OPs.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I agree with the submission of learned counsel for ‘OPs’. It is true that except train ticket Annexure C-1, there is no evidence at all on file to prove the said allegation by complaint. Railway Ticket Annexure C-1 is of General Compartment, hence no particulars of complainant are mention therein. As per complainant the ticket was from Bhiwani to Chandigarh but the route of train was from Bikaner to Haridwar. Hence it was not supposed to go to Chandigarh. Secondly, from the complaint, it is clear that complainant is an advocate by profession, a legal brain, but he did not make complaint of non-availability of water in the said coach, either to the TTE or to any Superintendent/Station Master of any station, which can be expected from such a responsible citizen. Apart from this complainant did not send legal notice to ‘OPs’ before filing the complaint, thus it cannot be said that OPs did not resolve the complaint of the complainant, hence complaint is pre mature. Moreover, complainant has filed this complaint under wrong provision of the Act i.e. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which deals with the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, so in the eyes of law, it is not a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Merely placing the ticket Annexure C-1 on record, does not prove that complainant travelled in the said train against the aforesaid ticket or there was any deficiency of service as alleged on the part of OPs.
15. Complainant has failed to prove the alleged allegation against the OPs, thus no deficiency of service is proved on the part of the OPs.
16. So finding no merit in the complaint, the same stands dismissed.Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission.
Dated: - 13.06.2022
(Harisha Mehta) (Sh. Vijay Singh)
Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.
