BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.199/2018

DATED ON THIS THE 5^th September, 2019

      Present:   1) Sri. C.V.Maragoor

B.Com., L.L.M., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.            

                                        B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri C.V.MARAGOOR,

President

1.       This complaint is filed by Goutham Chand S/o late Jugraj resident of Mysuru to direct the opposite parties the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railways, Mysuru, The Station Master, South Western Railways, Mysuru and the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bhagath Ki Koti Railway Station, Jodhpur, Rajasthan State for refund of the amount of Rs.1,060/- fare charges for cancellation of train, Rs.12,500/- flight charges from Ahmedabad to Bangalore, Bangalore to Mysuru, Rs.50,000/- towards mental shock, damages, deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- cost of the proceedings, in all of Rs.68,560/- with interest.
2.       It is the case of complainant that he had booked return journey ticket from Bhagath Ki Koti to Bangalore on 06.02.2018 at Mysuru for travelling in train No.16533 on 28.03.2018.  The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.460/- being the fare charges and seat was reserved in coach No.S2 Birth No.12. On 27.03.2018 the complainant had been to Jodhpur to verify the distance from Jodhpur Railway Station to Bhagath Ki Koti since the train departure schedule was at 5.30 AM.  On verifying from the enquiry counter came to know that his return journey booked train No.16533 was cancelled.  The opposite parties have not intimated with regard to cancellation of train though he had mentioned his mobile number in the reservation application. The journey from Bhagath Ki Koti, Jodhpur to Bangalore is nearly 48 hours and cancelling the train without any intimation amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of railway authority.
3.       It is further case of complainant that he had taken journey to Ahmedabad from Jodhpur in Janmabhumi Express by paying the charges of Rs.645/-.  Thereafter, he has travelled to Bangalore in the flight and then from Bangalore to Mysuru by paying a total fare charges of Rs.12,500/-.  The complainant has sent notice to the opposite parties for refund of the train charges and amount spent for travel in flight.  The opposite parties did not respond to his notice. Hence, the complainant has constrained to file this complaint.
4.     The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their learned counsel and filed written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary and mis-joinder of parties.  The jurisdiction of Mysuru Railway Division does not extend to Jodhpur Railway Division.  The entire incident was occurred at Jodhpur Railway Station, as such Mysuru Division is not responsible for cancellation at Jodhpur.  Mysuru Division cannot be blamed for deficiency in service.  This District Consumer Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint since the cause of action has arisen at Jodhpur.
5.      After taking the liability contention by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, the complainant has impleaded the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bhagath Ki Koti Railway Station, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur, Rajasthan as party and the opposite party No.3 has refused to receive the notice hence, it is placed exparte.
6.      The complainant to prove his contention has filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced seven documents in support of their case.  That one S.G.Yatish, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railway, Mysuru filed their affidavit in lieu of evidence.
7.      We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned  counsel for the complainant and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in addition to their written brief and the points that would arise for determination are as under:-  

1. Whether the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 prove that District Consumer Forum, Mysuru has no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant proves that the act of opposite parties not intimating the cancellation of train or making alternative arrangement for his return journey amounts to deficiency in service?
3.  Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

8.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative;

Point No.2 :- In the affirmative;

Point No.3 :- Partly in the affirmative for the below;

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.         Point No.1:- The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 vehemently argued that the cause of action has not arisen at Mysuru since the cancellation of train has taken place at Jodhpur, Rajasthan State.  The complainant has produced return journey ticket issued at Mysuru on 06.02.2018 at 12.55 PM for return journey of complainant on 28.03.2018 at 5.30 AM from Bhagath Ki Koti to Bangalore.  This ticket indicates that the complainant seat was reserved in S2 Coach Birth No.12.  On seeing the return journey ticket it established that the complainant has booked his return journey at Mysuru on 06.02.2018 by paying a sum of Rs.460/-.  The learned counsel for the complainant on the point of territorial jurisdiction brought to the notice of this Forum the case of Spicejet Limited Vs Ranju Aery IV (2017) Consumer Protection Judgements 1 (NC) wherein it is held that place of accrual of cause of action with booking of travel tickets on internet, acceptance of contract was received by the complainant through internet at his place of business residence.  The Hon’ble State Commission at Chandigarh had territorial jurisdiction as part of cause of action arose at Chandigarh.  In the above case, the complainant Ranju Aery booked air tickets online from Chandigarh to Bagdogra (West Bengal) to travel from New Delhi from Bagdogra on 26.03.2015 and return journey from Bagdogra to Kolkata and the connecting flight of the appellant Spicejet Limited from Kolkota to New Delhi on 30.06.2015.  That on 30.06.2015 when the complainant and his family members came to kolkota airport came to know that appellant connecting flight was cancelled.  The appellant has not intimated cancellation of the flight from kolkota to New Delhi scheduled at 20.40 hours and further not made arrangement of alternative flight.  The complainant by booking another flight went to Mumbai thereafter to Delhi by that time scheduled Volvo bus to go to Chandigarh has missed since flight from Mumbai to Delhi came at 5.00 AM.  The Hon’ble National Commission upheld the order passed by the District Forum and Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh stating that the complainant has booked air tickets on online within in the jurisdiction of Chandigarh District Forum as such it had territorial jurisdiction to handle the compliant.
10.        In the case on hand the complainant had purchased return journey ticket from opposite party No.2 i.e. Station Master, Mysuru on 06.02.2018 to travel from Bhagath Ki Koti to Bangalore. The facts of case of Hon’ble National Commission is similar to the facts of the present case as such this Forum is having territorial jurisdiction to handle the complaint.  Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in the negative.
11.     Point Nos.2 and 3:- The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not produced any material to show that the reserved return journey train was not cancelled to disprove the case of complainant. On the contrary, the complainant has produced air ticket and also railway ticket for undertaking journey from Jodhpur to Ahmadabad on 27.03.2018 at 9.18 PM. The opposite party No.3 has refused to receive the notice sent by this Forum.  Thus the complainant has proved that the opposite parties have failed to intimate the cancellation of the return journey train or made alternative arrangement to take journey from Bhagat Ki Koti to Bangalore on 28.03.2018. This act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
12.       The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 submitted that Mysuru Division is not liable for the fault of opposite party No.3.  The railways in India is Central Government undertaking and for administrative reasons the Government of India has made number of Divisions for smooth functioning.  The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for refund of the return journey charges along with flight charges and compensation to the complainant.  The complainant has suffered for making journey from Bhagath Ki Koti  Jodhpur to Mysuru since the opposite parties have failed to intimate well in advance with regard to cancellation of the train though he reserved in that particular train.  Therefore, the opposite parties shall liable to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant in addition to return journey fare charges and amount spent for travelling from Bhagat Ki Koti to Mysuru in flight and train.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by Goutham Chand resident of Mysuru is partly allowed directing the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 shall jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- as train and flight charges + compensation of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses to the complainant within 60 days from the date of order.  In case opposite parties fail to comply with the order, it carries interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till realization.

2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 5^th September, 2019)