F.A.No.1512 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.103 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II HYDERABAD

Between
M.L.Agarwal S/o late Sri G.R.Agarwal
aged about 69 years, Occ: Business
R/o 2-1-113, Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad-003
Present Address:
Rama Towers, TSK Chambers,
5-4-83, M.G.Road, Secunderabad-003

Appellant/complainant

          A N D

1.    The Chief Commercial Manager,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam
Secunderabad

2.  The Superintendent (Reservation)
     New Delhi Railway Station, Central Railway
     New Delhi

                                                          Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant               Sri G.Venkata Swamy Goud

Counsel for the Respondents         Sri J.T.Sastry      

QUORUM:      SRI SYED ABDHULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                      &

                              SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

         TUESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE               

                                         TWO THOUSAND NINE

   Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***

          The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

          Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his complaint in C.D.No.103 of 2006 by the District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the appellant preferred this appeal on the grounds that he was not allowed, to recommence his journey by the respondent on 28.5.2006 whereby he was compelled to purchase fresh tickets for Rs.2,481/- in spite of his entitlement to transfer on the same ticket after braking the journey on 26.5.2006 and that though he and his wife are senior citizens and booked the tickets in advance,  they were allowed upper berths. 

          The brief facts of the case are that on 23.4.2005 the appellant purchased journey-cum-reservation tickets for to and fro for five members in 2T AC by train No.2723 from Secunderabad and return journey from New Delhi was 25.5.2005 and 4.6.2005 respectively.  The complainant and his family members had a break journey at Mathura. They claimed refund of the amount for untraveled portion of the journey.  The Head Ticket Collector Y.N.Sharma and General Ticket Collector Murthy at Mathura Junction refused to accept the R/C of journey whereby the appellant and his family members were put to inconvenience and they had to travel in an unreserved compartment for Rs.2591/- as they were not allowed the break their journey on the same ticket.  The appellant got issued legal notice dated 2.1.2006 through his advocate to the respondents demanding for refund of the amount of Rs.2296/- with interest, damages and compensation.

          The respondents filed common counter.  It was contended that there were no Head Ticket Collector by name Y .N.Sharma and General Ticket Collector, Murthy at Mathura Junction.  The statement of the appellant R/C journey is not known to the railway administration.  The appellant got endorsement on tickets for breaking his journey at Mathura junction.  The question of surrender of tickets arise only if the appellant fails to perform his outward journey on the same tickets from Mathura junction to New Delhi on or before 29.5.2005.  The appellant concealed the truth. 

The appellant commenced his outward journey from Mathura junction to New Delhi only after 29.5.2005.  The appellant should purchase fresh tickets to travel from Mathura junction to New Delhi if he had failed to travel on or before 29.5.2005 after availing his break journey at Mathura junction as permissible days allowed for break journey are only two days excluding the day of arrival and day of departure.  The allotments of berth were done as per first come first served.  In the event of only few berths available and left over for reservation it may be in different coaches.  The computer system will allot all berths available before allotting RAC seats.  In response to the appellant’s letter dated 10.6.2005, the railway administration arranged refund of Rs.185/- on partial used ticket duly indicating the calculation of the refund amount of Rs.185/-.  The appellant had not travelled from Mathura junction to New Delhi after breaking the journey at Mathura as it is clearly endorsed on the tickets that there was a break journey. 

          The District Forum framed the following issues:

1)    Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant?

2)    Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?

The grievance of the appellant as canvassed in the appeal is that the District Forum failed to consider that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and that the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the appellant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

The point for consideration is whether the impugned order warrants any interference in this appeal?

There is no dispute in regard to the purchase of journey-cum-reservation ticket by the appellant for five members for to-and-fro from Secunderabad to New Delhi.  The appellant contends that he and his family members had break journey in Mathura Junction and thereafter they were deemed to travel on the same ticket and  they were not allowed to avail the facility of break journey.  Further it is the contention of the appellant that the Head Ticket Collector Y.M.Sharma and General Ticket Collector Murthy at Mathura junction refused to accept the tickets for surrender apart from permitting the appellant and his family members for R/J.  The respondent’s version is that there were no Head Ticket Collector and General Ticket Collector by name Y.N.Sharma and Murthy respectively at Mathura junction.  It is also the contention of the respondent that the surrender of two tickets itself would speak the suppression of the truth on the part of the appellant that he had not travelled till 29.5.2005 after having a break journey at Mathura Junction. 

The letter dated 9.11.2005 addressed to the respondent no.1 shows that  the appellant was paid Rs.185/- and the appellant claimed Rs.2481/- and also sought Rs.2296/- with interest. By its letter dated 16.12.2005 respondentno.1 given clarification of the calculation of the amount to be refunded and the fare paid by the appellant for journey of six adults and it has also given the details of fare for the travel portion and basic fare reservation SFC etc.  Being dissatisfied with the clarification letter issued by the respondent no.1 appellant got issued notice to the respondents reiterating the stand that he was entitled to the amount as mentioned in the complaint.  If the appellant has failed to explain how he is entitled when the rules  speak clearly that the appellant had to recommence journey within two days excluding the date of arrival and date of departure and the fact brought to our notice by the respondent clearly speak of the fact that they have not travelled till 29.5.2005 from Mathura to New Delhi.  In the circumstances we hold the appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.

                                                                             PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                                      MEMBER

                                                                           Dated: 30.06.2009