Date of Filing: 30-12-2016
Date of Order:24 -06-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Monday, the 24th day of June, 2019
C.C.No.19 /2017
Between
G.V.S. Prasad Rao S/o.G.Rama Rao (party in person)
Aged 58 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o.6-3-456/9, Second floor, Dwarakapuri Colony,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad – 5000822 (T.S) ……Complainant
And
The General Manager
South Central Railway
Rail Nilayam
Secunderabad - 500003 ….Opposite Party
Counsel for the complainant : Party in person
Counsel for the opposite Party : M/s. Vijaya Sagi
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that refusal of cancelation of ticket by the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service hence a direction to opposite party to refund the cost of ticket at Rs.365/- and to award a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing humiliation, mental agony, pain, anxiety and stress by refusing the cancellation of ticket and award a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
- The complaint averments in brief are that on 13-8-2016 the complainant purchased a sleeper ticket to travel from Hyderabad to Vishakapatnam on 16-08-2016 and he was issued a journey cum reservation ticket with waiting list No.129. On 16-8-2016 he has sent a letter to opposite party to release a berth under Emergency quota and waited till 3.30PM by which time final chart will be released but the reservation was not confirmed. Immediately after release of final reservation chart the complainant went to reservation counter of opposite party situate at Ameerpet for cancelation of ticket and collected a token at 3.54PM. His turn came at about 5.05P.M and the person available at the counter refused to take cancellation application stating that it was time barred. The complainant explained in the counter that he approached within one hour before the departure of the train which is a time fixed for cancellation for refund and requested the person in the counter to note the time on the coupon obtained at their centre for processing his cancellation application. But the person in the counter ruthlessly said that they are not concerned with token time and the time when the applicant came to the counter alone will be considered. The above said action of opposite party in treating the complainant in unfair manner and refusing the entertain the cancellation application amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. It is not the fault of the complainant if his turn comes as per the serial number and by then time exceeds one hour time limit prescribed for cancellation of ticket and he cannot assume or presume as to what time will be taken for once turn according to serial number allotted. The complainant had to undergo lot of tension from one counter to another counter trying to convince the staff at the counters of opposite party and finally came out and made alternate arrangements for travel as he had some important case at Vishakapatnam.
The action of the opposite party in rejecting the application for cancellation though he approached at 3.54P.M and collected the coupon for cancellation within time prescribed cancellation is unfair and unjust, hence the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
- The opposite party filed a written version denying the allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service in dealing with the matter. The defense set out in the written version is that the complaint is neither having any legal entity nor a juristic personality because the union of India is not made a party on this ground this complaint is not maintainable. Under the Provisions of Section 13 read with Section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the subject matter. In the matter of Civil Appeal No.7142/1995 between Chairman, Thiruvallur Corporation Vs.Consumer Protection Council the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 being a special law it will prevail over the General law of Consumer Protection Act. No prior notice as required under Section 80 of CPC was issued by the complainant before initiating the present complaint. On these grounds also the complaint is not maintainable.
The complainant claims that he purchased a waitlist sleeper class ticket with PNR No.474-2667905 to travel from Secunderabad to Visakhapatnam on 16-8-2016 by train No.17016 whose schedule departure time was 16.50 hrs. No letter was received from the complainant for release of berth under emergency quota. Ticket shall be cancelled atleast 30 minutes before the schedule departure of train as per the refund rules. What made the complaint to wait till 16.00hours for cancellation of ticket is not stated. The staff who refused to receive the cancellation form at 17.05 hours was on account of that it was time barred and he acted rightly as per the rules. The Railway Administration cannot accept cancellation of ticket and arrange refund, unless the unused wait listed ticket is presented for cancellation at least 30 minutes before the scheduled departure of train as per the refund rules which are displayed at Railway stations and communicated in the railway time table as such there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in refusing to accept the cancellation ticket.
The complainant’s claim that he collected token at the Reservation counter of opposite party at 15.54hrs i.e, twenty six minutes before the schedule cancellation of ticket was no use because a token/coupon system was kept open to facilitate the passengers to follow queue system but it does not give any binding on opposite party for the complainant . The token is common for all the passengers. The complainant has to select a counter from the available one so he can cancel the ticket easily. In this case he had chosen to go reservation office where the number of counters is less. The delay was only on the part of the complainant. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the enquiry the complainant has filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the facts narrated in the complaint and got exhibited unused travel ticket, cancellation coupon and cancellation form as A1 to A3. For the Opposite Party evidence affidavit of its Chief Commercial Manager (Claims) is got filed and substance of the same is in line with the defense set out in the written version. The opposite party got exhibited copies of New refund rules came up in 12th November 2015 as Ex.B1 and B2. Complainant alone filed written arguments.
On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether refusal to accept the cancellation form submitted by the complainant amounts to deficiency of service ?
- Whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: It is evident from Ex.B1 and B2 that cancelation of unused ticket should be presented at the counter atleast 30 minutes before the scheduled departure of the train. In the written version the opposite party has categorically stated that this rule possession is clearly displayed in all the Railway stations and also included in the Railway time table for the convenience of the travelers. The complainant is a practicing Advocate and he cannot plead ignorance of the rules. The main contention of the complainant appears to be that he has collected the token issued in one of the counters of the opposite party at 15.54 hours and schedule departure of the subject train was 4.30 PM. It appears that the complainant is under the impression that the time of issuance of the token will be considered while calculating whether it was 30 minutes before the schedule departure of train. As rightly pointed out by the opposite party the facility of token or coupon provided for the convenience of the persons who comes either for the cancelation or booking of the tickets. By collecting a token or coupon he need not stand in the queue. Collecting of the token or coupon does not amount to presenting of an application for cancelation of ticket what is requisite is presenting of cancelation of application to the person in the counter within the time fixed for it. Issuance of token or coupon does not amount to acceptance of application for the cancelation of ticket. Sometimes it is possible a person who collected a token may not turn up at counter with the application of cancelation of ticket. What is important is presenting of the application to the person in the counter and not the collection of the token or coupon within time. In the instant case admittedly the complainant presented application to the person in the counter after the expiry of time fixed for it. There is no dispute with regard to the time when he presented the application and time when the collected token.
In the light of specified rules that for cancelation of unused ticket one most present the application at least 30 minutes before the schedule departure of train which was not done in the present case. Hence complainant cannot allege deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.2: One of the defence taken by the opposite party is this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for the reason that under Section 13 read with Section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 being a special law it will prevail over the General law of Consumer Protection Act, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thiruvallur Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council but the copy of judgment is not placed on record. At the same time the learned council for the complainant filed copy of the orders of the Consumer Forum –II wherein a similar situation arose and basing on the orders of the National Commission in the case of General Manager South Central Railway Vs.Dr.R.V.Kumar and another reported in 2005 CTJ 862 and also in the case of General Manager Eastern Railway and Another Vs. Smt. Malini Gupta 1999 (3) CPJ 573 ordered that the Consumer Forum has got a jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint in respect of the any claim against the railways. Hence the defense taken by the opposite party that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint holds no legs to stand. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.3: In view of the findings in point No.1 that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
Point No.4: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 24th day of June , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 -unused travel ticket
Ex.A2 –Reservation /cancellation requisition form
Ex.A3 - token
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite party
Ex.B1 and B2 copies of New refund rules to be effective from 12th November 2015
MEMBER PRESIDENT
