Date of filing : 30-04-2008<br /> Date of order : 27-09-2008<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD<br /> CC.57/08<br /> Dated this, the 27th day of September 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> Rameshan.K,<br /> S/o.Late.K.Kunhambu,<br /> Weavers Colony, } Complainant.<br /> Thaikadappuram.Po,<br /> Nileswhar.Via. Kasaragod.Dt.<br /> <br /> 1. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, } Opposite parties<br /> Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,<br /> Palakkad.<br /> 2. Station Master, Nileshwar Railway Station,<br /> Nileshwar.<br /> 3. Station Master, Kanhangad Railway Station,<br /> Kanhangad.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ,PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Rameshan filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of railway authorities. Rameshan booked two tickets for Rs.480/- from Kanhangad railway station to Thiruvananthapuram on 18-04-2005 by Mangalore-Thiruvananthapuram Malabar Express. But the berth reservation was not confirmed till 3.30 P.M. even on the day of journey. Forseeing the difficulties in traveling without confirmed ticket he approached Kanhangad railway station Master to cancel the ticket. But it was informed him that even though the ticket is booked from Kanhangad, since the boarding proposed was from Nileshwar he should approach Nileshwar Railway Station to cancel the ticket to get the refund. Immediately he contacted Nileshwar Railway Station authorities and submitted application for the ticket cancellation and obtained surrender certificate from station master. As instructed by the station master, Nileshwar he sent the surrender certificate and ticket along with the application to Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad Division, the Ist opposite party herein. But no reply received for the same. He sent another reminder for the same on 27-12-2005. But to the said letter also there was no reply. Again on 20-06-06 he sent another letter with a photostat copy of the ticket. But the approach of railway authorities were quite irresponsible. They did not even care to sent a reply. Finally on 20-03-2007 as a final step complainant sent another reminder letter. But till date of complaint he has not received any reply. Hence this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with a cost of Rs.2000/-.<br /> 2. Opposite parties entered appearance and Ist opposite party, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad Division filed version. According to opposite party No.1 the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. As per Section 13 r/w Sec.15 of the Railway claims Tribunal Act 1987, only the Railway Claims Tribunal constituted under the said Act has jurisdiction to try cases in respect of the claims for refund of fare and connected matters and as this complaint relates to claim for refund of fare and damages consequent to the failure of refund, this complaint is liable to be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. On merits the case of Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Palakkad Division is that as per the records available with them no claims regarding refund of fare of the complainant in respect of the ticket purchased by him for journey from Nileshwar to Kanhangad as stated is pending. But the Railway is prepared to refund the amount if any due on production of the records available with the complainant. The delay in paying the amount is caused due to non-availability of records and there is no latches or negligence on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant has not suffered any mental agony or damage as claimed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. Rameshan examined himself as PW1 and Exts A1 to A9 were marked. Opposite parties neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documents.<br /> 4. Rameshan tendered oral evidence in tune with his complaint. He was cross-examined by the counsel for opposite parties. The documents produced proves that Rameshan had booked tickets as stated. Ext. A1 is the photocopy of the ticket, Ext.A2 is the manuscript copy of the application dt.18-04-2005. Ext.A3 is a Photostat copy of reminder letter dtd.27-12-05 sent to Opposite party No.1 requesting refund of the same after cancelling the reservation tickets. Ext.A4 is the courier receipt dt.21-04-05. Ext.A5 is copy of another reminder letter dt.19-06-2006. Ext.A6 is the courier receipt dt.20-06-06 addressing opposite party No.1. Ext.A7 is copy of another reminder letter dt.20-03-07 sent to opposite party No.1. Ext.A8 courier acknowledgement receipt dt.21-07-06 addressing opposite party No.1 and the seal affixed from the office of opposite party No.1 on the said receipt proves that opposite party No.1 has received that courier. Ext.A9 is the copy of a cancellation form dt. 18-04-05.<br /> 5. The Rameshan submitted that he had complied all the formalities for the refund of the price of the unused reserved tickets which he obtained by paying Rs.480/-. But opposite parties ignored to refund the amount inspite of his repeated demands and reminders. <br /> 6. The counsel for the opposite party maintained that the complaint is not maintainable in view of Sec.13 r/w 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1957 and the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. On merits his argument is that complainant has not produced the copy of the surrender certificate which is a very vital document to process his claim. <br /> 7. The contentions of opposite parties are not acceptable. First on the question of jurisdiction, where the issue is of one of the deficiency in service, the Consumer Protection Act, which is a supplant and not a supplement to any other laws, comes in to play irrespective of any of the legislations like Railways Tribunal Act etc. Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection envisages that it is in addition to and not in derogation of any other laws. Hence we hold that Forum has got jurisdiction to deal with this complaint.<br /> 8. The contention of the counsel of opposite party that Rameshan has not produced the copy of the surrender certificate is also of no force, because according to Rameshan he sent the surrender certificate, the ticket and the application for refund to opposite party No.1 by courier. Can a consumer anticipate litigation proceedings for the non-refund of his claim for refund of ticket against the authorities at the time of processing his claim and to take copies of all documents he sent claiming refund ? Definitely not. It is fortunate that the complainant at least produced the copy of unused ticket and the copies of communications with courier receipts. Most of the passengers may not even care to take copies of unused tickets which he may sent for refund with the necessary surrender certificate and application. Exts A2 to A8 makes it clear that complainant had made several communications for the refund of his claim and at no point of time the authorities at least scribbled a word in reply about the non-receipt of his claim. So the contention at this stage that the complainant has not produced the copy of the surrender certificate deserves no consideration.<br /> 9. The procedure to be followed for getting the refund of tickets are so cumbersome that in most cases it would be impossible for passengers to follow the rules. In this case Rameshan has to approach opposite party 3 at Kanhangad and there after opposite party No.2 at Nileshwar even to get the surrender certificate which is a gate pass for his unwieldy procedures for ticket refund by spending a great deal of time and effort. Most passengers may be put off by these rules rather than go through the entire gamut to obtain a small refund. We appreciate complainant Rameshan who spent much time and effort to knock on the doors of opposite parties to get his grievance redressed, not frustrated and finally approached the Forum for relief.<br /> 10. It is high time for the railway authorities to make the ticket refunding system more consumer friendly so as to enable every passengers to get his money refunded from any railway station as in the case of booking of tickets. For the foregoing reasons we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in the matter of non-refund claim of Rameshan. <br /> Therefore we allow the complaint and direct the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway Palakkad Division, Station Master, Nileshwar, Station Master, Kanhangad jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.480/- to Rameshan being the ticket fare with a compensation of Rs.3000/- for the loss, hardships he undergone and efforts he taken for getting the refund of his claim. They are also liable to pay Rs.1000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Opposite party No.1, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway Palakkad Division further directed to take steps with their higher authorities to make necessary amendments in the rules regarding the refund of ticket to make it more consumer friendly so as to enable the passenger to get his money refunded from the counter of any railway station where he surrender the ticket. Time for compliance of this order 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts.<br /> A1.Photocopy of Jourey cum Reservation Ticket.<br /> A2.18-4-05 letter sent by complainant to OP No.1.<br /> A3.27-12-05 letter sent by complainant to OP No.1.<br /> A4. Courier receipt.<br /> A5.19-06-06 reminder letter.<br /> A6. Courier receipt<br /> A720-03-07 reminder letter<br /> A8. Courier receipt.<br /> A9. Cancellation form.<br /> <br /> PW1. Rameshan.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Pj/<br /> <br />