Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/873

KU.NITIKA DESHMUKH - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

SH.UMESHWAR DAYAL

01 Sep 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

                   PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL                         

                                                                         

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 872 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 26.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.31/2015 by the District Commission, Betul)

 

KU. VAISHALI DESHMUKH.                                                                              …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER,

SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & SENIOR

DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, CENTRAL

RAILWAY, NAGPUR.                                                                                           …         RESPONDENTS.

 

 

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 26.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.32/2015 by the District Commission, Betul)

 

KU. NITIKA DESHMUKH.                                                                                    …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER,

SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & SENIOR

DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, CENTRAL

RAILWAY, NAGPUR.                                                                                           …         RESPONDENTS.

 

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 874 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 26.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.33/2015 by the District Commission, Betul)

 

KU. ANUPMA DESHMUKH.                                                                              …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER,

SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & SENIOR

DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, CENTRAL

RAILWAY, NAGPUR.                                                                                          …         RESPONDENTS.

 

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 875 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 26.04.2017 passed in C.C.No.34/2015 by the District Commission, Betul)

 

ANIL KUMAR DESHMUKH.                                                                                 …          APPELLANT.

 

Versus

                 

SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER,

SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & SENIOR

DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, CENTRAL

RAILWAY, NAGPUR.                                                                                           …         RESPONDENTS.

 

 

 

-2-

 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                     :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Umeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the complainants/appellants. 

           Shri Om Shankar Shrivastava and Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents.     

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 01.09.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                         Aforesaid four appeals arise out of a common order and are taken up together.  This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.872/2017 unless otherwise stated.  

2.                This appeal assails the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Betul (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.31/2015 whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint.

 3.               The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission stating that she, along with three of her family members got a reserved ticket having PNR no. 6323953344, in Train No.14009 (Patalkot Express) for journey from Betul to Bhopal on 20.10.2013. The complainants were allotted berth no.53, 50, 52 and 49 in Sleeper Coach-‘S-5’. It is alleged

-3-

that on the date of journey i.e. 20.10.2013, the sleeper coach ‘S-5’ was not attached with the train. Due to the aforesaid, the complainant had to travel in general coach, which caused inconvenience to her. Alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties, she approached the District Commission seeking relief.

4.                The opposite parties submitted that information regarding non-attachment of sleeper coach ‘S-5’ with the train was given to passengers via prior announcement.  The passengers were offered an alternative arrangement, as also refund of fare, if the passengers intended to discontinue with their journey.  Therefore, in the circumstances, there has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties in the instant matter.

5.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to give Rs.7,000/- towards compensation with Rs.3,000/- as costs, to the complainants. Hence this appeal.

6.                Heard.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission has ignored important aspect in the matter that no adjustment of fare was done by the opposite parties/respondents, when the complainant had to purchase a new ticket for general coach in order to travel. No direction for refund of fare is there in the impugned order and the

-4-

compensation awarded is also meagre.  He argued that the complainant/appellant deserves to be compensated appropriately. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4882 OF 2013 (UOI Through DRM Sealdah Division (Eastern Railway) & Anr Vs Susanta Kumar Saha decided on 21 January 2014, in order to support his arguments.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents argued that prior intimation regarding non-attachment of the coach was given to the passengers. The case of the complainant/appellant regarding refund of fare is not maintainable because that can be decided under Section 13 to 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.  Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant deserves to be dismissed.

9.                Upon careful perusal of the record and the impugned order, we find that the District Commission has elaborately dealt with the issued involved in the matter. The District Commission has awarded compensation to the complainant/appellant on account of inconvenience caused to her. In the judgment of National Commission in Susanta Kumar Saha (supra) (referred by learned counsel for the complainant/appellant), it is mentioned that the opposite parties were held deficient in service in not communicating to the complainant regarding diversion of the train route.  It is categorically held in the said judgment that the complainant has neither claimed for refund

-5-

of fare or part thereof nor refund of any freight. His case is that, despite purchasing a valid reserved ticket from the opposite parties, railway ticket counter, he suffered mental agony, stress, tension and physical stress.  It was because of incorrect and misguiding information given by railways enquiry service, as well as at the enquiry counter at Howrah Station, that he was compelled to avail alternative arrangement with his journey for more than 7 hours.

10.              Going through the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the referred judgment has not dealt with the issue regarding refund of fare. Therefore, the complainant/appellant cannot be benefitted by the judgment referred.  

11.              Considering all the aspects of the case, we are of an opinion that the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and awarded appropriate compensation which do not deserve enhancement.

12.              In the result, this appeal, being devoid of merits is dismissed with no order as to costs.

12.              This order be placed in First Appeal No.872/2017 and a copy be placed in First Appeal Nos.873, 874 & 875 of 2017.

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (S. S.BANSAL) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                  PRESIDENT                           MEMBER              MEMBER