Delhi

StateCommission

FA/261/2014

INDIAN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAROJ - Opp.Party(s)

24 Mar 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision: 24.03.2015

First Appeal- 261/14

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. Indian Railway (Northern)

Region) Through D.R.G.M.,

NDCR Building, State Entry

Road, New Delhi-110001

 

2. Karkardooma Railway

Reservation Centre,

Karkardooma, Delhi,

110092

                                                                                     …..Appellants

 

Versus

Smt. Saroj, Wife of Sh. Kamal,

Kimti Lal, R/o, H.No. 6, Street,

No. 11, New Lahore, Shastri,

Nagar Extn. Delhi-110031

                                                                                 …..Respondent

CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

 

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

In this appeal challenge has been made to order dated 02.12.2013 by which the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, (East) (in short, “the District Forum) in complaint case no. 195/12 has awarded Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the respondent/complainant by holding deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP in not providing seat to the respondent/complainant.

The case of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum was that two tickets were purchased by her son for the return journey from Agra Cantt. to Nizamuddin, Delhi for 27.02.2012. Seat No. C1-3 and C1-8 were reserved for them. It was alleged that when they boarded the Taj Express from Agra Cantt. it was told that there was no seat no. C1-3 as a result of which her son had to offer his seat i.e. seat no. C1-8 to the respondent/complainant.

It was alleged that after passing of considerable time a substitute seat no. 71 was allotted to her son. It was alleged that respondent/complainant suffered lot of inconvenience as she has a distorted vision and her son had to sit far away from her. At Mathura Junction, they were provided nearby seats. The respondent/complainant had prayed for refund of costs of tickets as well as compensation and litigation expenses.

        The Railway had contested the complaint by filing written reply and both the parties had led their evidence.

        After hearing both the parties, the District Forum has only awarded Rs. 5000/- inclusive litigation expenses to the respondent/complainant.

Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.

The counsel for the parties have been heard.

        Considering that amount awarded is a meager amount and the District Forum has taken a sympathetic view in the matter as respondent being senior citizen having distorted vision and major relief of refund of tickets is not given, in these circumstances, the impugned order is not disturbed. The contention raised by the appellant in this appeal are left open.

        Appellant has already deposited 5000/- in this Commission at the time of filing of this appeal.

        Let the aforesaid amount along with interest be released in favour of the respondent.

        Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

        File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

Rakeeba