Delhi

StateCommission

A/417/2015

INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORP. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. VIJAY PRATAP SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

16 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments :16.10.2017

Date of Decision :24.10.2017

First Appeal No.417/2015

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Indian Railway Catering and

Tourism Corporation Ltd.,

11^th Floor, B-148,

Statesman House,

Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                                     ……Appellant

                                                                        Versus

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh,

S/o. Late Shri Ram Kishore Singh,

B-502, Sector-1, Vaisali-201011.                                                 ….Respondent

 

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                     Yes/No

Present:        Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan, Counsel for the appellant.

                        Shri Sanjeev Nirwani, Counsel for the respondent.

 

PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

Assailing the orders dated 28^th July, 2015 passed by the Distt. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) in CC 409/2015 in the matter of Shri Vijay Pratap Singh vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd., for short corporation holding that the respondent were deficient in rendering service to the complainant, causing an unprecedented harassment, stress and financial hardship and directing the opposite party to pay in all Rs.25,000/- which shall include the refund of the tickets, taxi hiring charges required to be hired because of the folly of the Railway and compensation for the harassment done, the corporation has preferred an appeal in this commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Act) praying for the relief as under:-

(i)      admit the appeal, call for the records of the District Forum (East), New Delhi and after hearing the parties, be pleased to allow the appeal by way setting aside the order dated 28.07.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), New Delhi, in complaint case no.409/2015.

(ii)     pass such other or further orders / directions as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice to the appellant.

 

Facts of the case are these.

Shri Vijay Pratap Singh, the complainant / respondent, resident of Vaisali, Ghaziabad, had booked two tickets for journey from Allahabad to New Delhi by train no.12397 Mahabodhi Expenses by 2 AC class vide PNR No.6440744395 booked on 07.05.2017, the status of which was wait listed and 6741841792 both for 28.05.2015 former in the normal way and the later by Tatkal both for 29.05.2015, Shri Akshat Singh, M-25, had to perform the journey. After booking of the tickets the complainant received a SMS  from the opposite party intimating that the train no.12397 for the day had been cancelled and therefore the complainant may seek cancellation of the ticket. The message so received is  reproduced below:   

“Train no.12397 boarding at ALD dated 29.05.2015 is cancelled by the Railways. Please cancel your PNR no.6741841792 online to get refund as per Railway Rules 28^th May”.         

Consequently the complainant got both the tickets cancelled and, since there was urgency to visit Delhi, got a taxi booked for the journey for which an expenditure of Rs.15,000/- was incurred. Later it was revealed that the said train was not cancelled and the intimation sent through SMS was not correct. Besides refund of only one ticket which was waitlisted was done and the refund the ticket purchased through Tatkal was not done though, according to the complainant, he was very much entitled to it . The act of the opposite party giving false information to the complainant regarding cancellation of the train caused a lot of harassment since the journey in that event had to be performed out of necessity by taxi which journey was very uncomfortable. Since no refund was done despite many requests  having been made, a complaint was filed before the Distt. Fora and the Distt. For a allowed the complaint with the following directions:

“Taking into consideration the detailed discussion and observations made supra, we arrive at an inference that the present  case is a clear cut case of deficiency in service whereby the respondent had put the complainant to unprecedented harassment, stress and financial hardship due to the deficient services provided by it. We allow the present complaint and direct the respondent to pay in all Rs.25,000/- to the complainant which shall include the refund of the value of Tatkal ticket the taxi hiring charges, compensation for harassment and costs.”

Appeal has been filed assailing the said order before this Commission.

The appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the impugned order is bereft of any legal or equitable basis, since no notice was served on them and the matter has been disposed of with utmost haste. Notice was sent on a wrong address. Besides the tickets booked were in favour of Shri Akshat Singh  while the complaint was filed by Shri Vijay Pratap Singh with whom there was no privity of contract. Infact the complainant has no locus  to file the complaint. The appellant further denies any deficiency of service qua the complainant and therefore the impugned order awarding Rs.25,000/- in favour of the complainant is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

The  respondents were noticed and a reply to the appeal has been filed stating that the appellant have not approached the Commission with clean hands, and material facts have been twisted and distorted. They have disputed the fact  regarding service of notice on the appellant/ opposite party as, according to the averments contained in the reply, notice were duly served and they had sufficient knowledge of the complaint regarding  having been filed. The allegation regarding locus has been denied as the ticket was purchased by the father and journey was to be performed by the son. For all these reasons the respondents has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

The matter was listed before us for final arguments on 16.10.2017 when counsel for both the sides appeared and advanced their arguments. We have perused the records of the case.

Point for consideration is whether the deficiency on the part of the appellant/ opposite party has been established in which case there would be no occasion for us to interfere with the orders passed.       

It is a statement of fact that SMS was sent to the complainant / respondent about the cancellation of the train, though later it was found that the train was actually not cancelled. The averment of the appellant/ opposite party that the SMS was inadvertently sent does not  carry conviction nor does it absolve the Railways from the liability arising out of this mess. Assuming that  the SMS was sent inadvertently, another SMS could have been sent, recalling the earlier message and intimating that the train would leave from Allahabad at the appointed date  and time, which was not done. This itself shows and proves the deficiency significantly.

The ld. Counsel for the appellant/ opposite party has taken an argument that they are only agent of the Railways. Direction, if any, is to be issued to the Railways for compliance and for taking  steps for implementation of the order. But Railways having not been impleaded as a party, the case may not be possible to succeed for non joinder of proper party. At this stage the ld counsel was requested to clarify to us the status of the corporation, the appellant. No specific or tangible arguments could be advanced, except that the corporation is a body  under and within the administrative and financial control of the Railways, though functional responsibility of the two are at variance. The functions to the Corporation are entrusted by the Railways. If that be the  case, the argument that the corporation has nothing to do with the management of  the Railways and the cancellation of train or otherwise and the refund of the tickets or otherwise are functions within the domain of the Railways, does not  carry conviction.

The corporation has been directed to pay to the complainant / respondent a sum of Rs.25,000/- in all for the deficiency of service. Deficiency of service is indisputably  established. The corporation or the Railways, for the financial purpose, are one and the same as apparently source of finance in either case, as submitted by the ld. Counsel in consultation with an official of thCorporation present in the court, is the same.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there exists no infirmity in the order impugned passed by the Distt. Fora and we maintain that. No costs.

Ordered accordingly.

A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost as statutorily required. A copy of the order may also be sent to the Distt. Fora for information.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                  (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)