Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/398/2015

Union Of India Through Divisional Manager (DRM) Northern Western Railway - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sonia W/o Manoj Kumar Garg - Opp.Party(s)

Pramod Kumar II

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 398 /2015

 

Union of India through Divisional Manager, Northern Western Railway Bikaner Divisional Office Railway Station Bikaner & ors.

Vs.

 

Sonia w/o Manoj Kumar r/o Ward No. 5 Sadulshar Distt. Sriganganagar.

 

 

Date of Order 27.01.2016

 

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka -Member

 

Mr. Balvinder Singh counsel for the appellants

Mr.Piyush B.S.Rathore counsel for the respondent

 

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned DCF Sriganganagar dated 2.3.2015 whereby the claim of the respondent has been allowed.

 

The short facts of the case are that the respondent purchased a ticket of train dated 27.5.2014 and thereafter she has to travel to Coimbatore through Kerala Express. When she reached at station on 27.5.2014 it has been informed to her that the train has been canceled and would not ply today and it will depart the station on 28.5.2014 at 7.00 a.m. It was not possible for the respondent to travel on 28.5.2014 as she has to catch another train to Coimbatore i.e. Kerala Express. The contention of the respondent was that it was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.

 

Per contra the appellant has contended that the train was running ten hours late and it has been rescheduled for 28.5.2014 but alternate train no. 12456 was available for Delhi. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant.

 

3

Heard the counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order as well as the original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the facts that respondent was consumer of the appellant and she has to travel in Train No. 13008 on 27.5.2014 at 9.00 p.m. and train not reached the destination as it was running ten hours late. It has also not been contended by the appellant that due to circumstances beyond his control the train was get late. Thus, the deficiency of service on the part of the appellant was well proved before the court below that it could not provide the train as per the ticket sold to her.

 

The contention of the appellant is that the alternate train no. 12456 was available for Delhi but there is no contention to the effect that tickets of train no. 13008 were made valid for the train no. 12456 and the option was given to the respondent to travel through alternate train. Hence, availability of the alternate train will not absolve the appellant from the liability. As the respondent was not competent to travel in train no. 12456 carrying ticket of train no. 13008.Hence, no alternative train was available to her. The court below has rightly held that the appellant has committed deficiency in service and rightly allowed the complaint of the respondent. No interference is

4

 

needed. Hence, the appeal is liable to be rejected.

 

The facts of the present case clearly speaks that the appellants were committed deficiency of service inspite of this they have contested the complaint and without any reasonable ground this appeal has been filed. The only aim seems to be to harass the consumer. Hence, this appeal is rejected with Rs.10,000/- costs.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm