Delhi

StateCommission

FA/518/2013

ADDL. DIR. RAILWAY MOOJER - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAKESH BANSAL & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:15.10.2015

 

First Appeal- 518/2013

 

(Arising out of the order dated 26.11.2012 passed in Complainant Case No. 522/2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi)

Additional Divisional Railway Manager,

New Delhi Railway Station.

•  

Versus

1. Rakesh Bansal,

S/o Sh. Radheshaym Bansal

 

2. Meenakshi,

W/o Sh. Rakesh Bansal

 

3. Vipin Bansal,

S/o Sh. Rakesh Bansal

 

All R/o 3/107, Nehru Street, Viswas Nagar, Delhi.

 

4. Manjula Bansal, W/o Late Sh. Rajesh Bansal

R/o House No.206, Sector-12A, Gurgaon.

                                              ….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) against the order dated 26.11.12 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.522/2011.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as under:

A complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondents herein i.e. complainants before the District Forum alleging therein that on 28.4.11, they had booked railway tickets in 2^nd AC vide PNR No.221-9862146 from New Delhi Railway Station to Sikandrabad Railway Station for journey to be performed on 16.5.11.  On 16.5.11, the status of two births was confirmed and rest of the two tickets was waitlisted as W/L 1 & 2. The respondents/complainants reached the Nizamudin Railway Station on aforesaid date and again tried to verify the position of their seats and found that all the four tickets were waitlisted.  They contacted the Train Ticket Examiner, but he did not help them.  In these circumstances, they returned the tickets and got the refund after deducting Rs.80/- from each ticket on 13.6.11.  It was alleged that the respondents/complainants had to go by Air after paying a heavy difference of railway tickets from that of air tickets and had to incur huge expenses on the air tickets.  Accordingly the aforesaid complaint was filed by them claiming Rs.4,26,466/- as compensation towards difference of railway and airways fare including cancellation charges.

 

 

 

 

3. The appellant/OP had appeared before the District Forum.  However, no written statement was filed by it.  Subsequently due

to non-appearance, the appellant was proceeded ex-parte and on the basis of the affidavit of the respondents/complainants, ex-parte judgement was passed wherein the appellant/OP had been directed to refund the entire amount of tickets together with interest thereon @ 9% from date of purchase of tickets till the amount was finally paid to the complainant. Rs.25,000/- was  awarded towards mental agony.

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed by the appellant/OP.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law.  It is submitted that there was no prayer of respondents/complainants for refund of the fare of the tickets. It is submitted that admittedly the cost of tickets had already been refunded to respondents/complainants. It is contended that the respondents/complainants were only claiming for the compensation towards harassment and mental agony and difference in the railway ticket and air ticket for going from Delhi to Sikandrabad.  It is contended that in these circumstances, the refund of railway tickets with interest, as is ordered by Ld. District Forum, is not justified.  As regards compensation, it is stated that the same is on higher side.  It is submitted that awarded compensation be reduced. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the tickets amount had already been refunded to the respondent/complainant before filing of the complaint. 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Ld. Counsel for respondents/complainants has admitted the position that  the  tickets  had  already  been  refunded      when complaint case was filed. Ld. Counsel for respondents/complainants has also admitted that status of two tickets was confirmed and the other two were waitlisted.  It is submitted that compensation is rightly awarded.
7. In view of above submissions, since there was no prayer for refund of the tickets, the Ld. District Forum ought not have issued the directions for refund of tickets.  The directions given in this regard are set aside.  As regards compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded, it is admitted position that when the tickets were booked, the status of the two tickets was confirmed and remaining two were wait listed.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that there was some computer’s fault due to which status of two confirmed tickets was wrongly shown.  However, nothing is shown in this regard.  Further the Train Ticket Examiner who had met the respondents/complainants at the Railway Station also provided no assistance.  Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the compensation is reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.
8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 
9. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.

 

 

 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(OP Gupta)

Member (Judicial)