BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE URBAN

    31^st DAY OF JULY 2021

ORDER

Smt.P.K.SHANTHA, MEMBER

The Complainants have filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as OPs) with a prayer to direct OPs to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards causing mental agony, inconvenience, to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency in service, to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cancellation of train without prior intimation and to pay the cost of the complaint, also to grant such other relief whichever deemed fit and proper in the circumstance of the case which would meet the ends of justice.                                           

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The complainants 1 and 2 are husband and wife.  The complainants booked the tickets through IRCTCS e-ticketing service, Bengaluru to travel from Hasimara to SILIGURI junction, in sleeper train No.15483 namely Mahananda Express, booked on 23.07.2018.  The OPs given schedule departure on 24.07.2018 at 10.05 AM, the OPs have collected the fare of said train for a sum of Rs.291/-. The complainant waited in the Hasimara railway station to board the said train on 24.07.2018 till 10.05 AM, the complainants were shocked to notice that the said train was cancelled, on the display-board in the railway station.  It is pertinent to note that the complainants booked the said train tickets online through internet from Bengaluru also the complainants did not receive any earlier intimation through SMS alert or any made about the cancellation of the said train.  The OPs are not diligent in intimating the said cancellation of train earlier to departure time schedule, mentioned in the train ticket.  The complainants were constrained to take the taxi to reach Siliguri where they would catch the flight from Bagdogra to Bengaluru.  Due to non-intimation of cancellation of said train, the complainants have suffered inconvenience and mental agony and irreparable loss to their physical strain and mental strain are all due to deficiency in service of the OPs.

The OPs after lapse of about one month, refunded the fare paid by the complainants to their account.  Hence, the complainants were not able to complete their journey as assured by the OPs, due to deficiency of service on the part of OPs, so the complainants were constrained to cancel their prefixed programs, which cause immense mental agony to the complainants.  Hence, the complainants constrained to file their complaint.

3. After registration of the complaint, notices were issued to OPs.  Inspite of service of notice, OPs failed to appear before the Commission and were placed exparte and the case was posted for filing affidavit of the complainant. At this stage, complainant filed I.A.1/2020 under Order I, Rule 20 CPC to implead proposed OP No.3 as a party to the above proceedings for adjudication of the above matter as he is just and necessary party.  Notice was issued to proposed OP No.3.  OP No.3 appeared and filed objections to I.A.No.1/2020.  Heard on the I.A.  The said I.A. dismissed.

 4. The complainants have tendered their evidence by way of affidavit of complainant No.1 and also produced documents in support of their case which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4.  The complainant has filed the written argument. Heard the complainant.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1.  Whether the Complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?
2. What order?

6. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Partly in the affirmative.

      Point No.2:  As per final orders

REASONS

7. Point No.1:  In support of complaint averments complainant No.1 Sri Nitin Jois filed his affidavit by way of evidence reiterating the complaint averments along with documents.
8. The sworn testimony of the complainant has remained unchallenged.  OPs neither filed version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complaint.
9. Perused the copies of documents and train ticket and flight tickets produced by the complainant.  The sworn testimony of the complainants establish that OPs have collected the fare Rs.291/- of said train on 23.07.2018 and issued tickets.  The said tickets were produced and marked as Ex.A.1.  The complainants have waited in the Hasimara railway station to board the said train on 24.07.2018 till 10.05 AM and were shocked to notice that the said train was cancelled, on the display board in the railway station.  The complainants did not receive any intimation through SMS alert or any other mode about the cancellation of the said train.  The OPs are not diligent in intimating the said cancellation of train earlier to departure time schedule mentioned in the train ticket.  The complainants were constrained to take the taxi to reach Siliguri, where they would catch the flight from Bagdogra to Bengaluru. The complainant produced the flight tickets and Boarding pass which are marked as Ex.A.2, A3, A4 and A5.   Google extract of cancellation of train is produced as Ex.A.6.  Due to the irresponsible behavour and deficiency of service of OP, complainants have suffered inconvenience and mental agony.
10. After lapse of about one month, the OPs have refunded the fare paid by the complainants to their account.  Due to the non-intimation of cancellation of said train, the complainants have constrained to cancel their prefixed programs which caused immense mental agony.
11. The very fact of OPs not contesting the proceedings leads us to draw an inference that OPs admitting claim of the complainants.  There is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged affidavit of the complainants and the documents produced.  Therefore, we propose to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service, inconvenience and mental agony and to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.  Hence, we answer the point No.1 partly in the affirmative.
12. Point No.2:- In the result, we proceed to pass the following

  O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant is allowed in part. 
2. OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards deficiency of service, inconvenience and mental agony and to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).
3. We also direct the OP to realize the above said amounts to the Complainant within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is at liberty to have the redress as per law.
4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 31^st day of July, 2021)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A5:-