Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member :
This consumer complaint is filed on 25.11.2011. It is alleged by the complainant that he alongwith his wife had reserved a ticket of Intercity Express between Pune to Mumbai with scheduled boarding at Pune on 25th September 2011. However, said reservation compartment was found over-crowded, the co-traveller had picked up a quarrel with him and his wife. When he wanted to sit on his reserved seat, some other passenger was found already occupying his seat and most reluctantly he vacated the same and mis-behaved with his wife. This fact was brought to the Attending Ticket Collector Ms Pawar who advised to lodge a complaint with the police. It is further alleged by the complainant that Ms Pawar told that this was the regular situation at the week end and expressed her helplessness to take any action against these people traveling without reservation. Complainant also alleged that Central Railway is totally responsible for this chaos. Therefore, consumer complaint is filed.
The complaint itself does not refer to the facts clarifying the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction assessed for the complaint. It is only alleged that the complainant first approached to the District Forum and thereafter, he was advised to approached this Commission. We find, prima-facie, it is District Forum which could have entertained this consumer complaint and the pecuniary jurisdiction for the consumer complaint in normal course would be much below the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission and as such the complaint cannot be entertained.
Apart from this. For alleged mis-behaviour of co-passenger with the complainant and his wife, the Railway administration cannot be held responsible in terms of deficiency in service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’ for brevity). Furthermore, it is alleged that the Ticket Collector, Ms Pawar expressed her helplessness over the situation. She, perhaps, cannot be blamed in the given situation which we do also experience sometimes in a overcrowded train or in heavy traffic season. She also advised the complainant to take necessary steps to report to the Railway Police. Further said Ticket Collector had also informed to the complainant that at next stop of the train i.e. Lonavala, Railway Police can attend his complaint. Therefore, in the given circumstances, no deficiency in service on the part of the Railway employee vis-à-vis Railway administration could be inferred.
Apart from this, grievance of the complainant is against the Railway administration i.e. Indian Railway. Consumer complaint is not filed against it. Complaint is filed against the ‘Sr. Divisional Manager’ who is an independent, separate and distinct jurisdic person within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He is not the service provider and the service provider, ‘Indian Railways’ is also a district jurisdic person.
For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the consumer complaint. The complainant failed to show that this Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and that in between the parties mentioined, a consumer dispute exists. Holding accordingly, we pass the following order :
O R D E R
Complaint is not admitted and stands rejected. No order as to costs.
Pronounced dated 7th December 2011.
