BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 276/2011/23.6.2011

312/2014/9.9.2014.

Date of Decision :12.11.2014

1. D.K.Sharma Advocate-947, Urban Estate Phase-1, Jalandhar.

2. Asha Sharma wife of D.K.Sharma Advocate-947, Urban Estate Phase-1, Jalandhar.

..........Complainants

Versus

1. Station Superintendent, Jalandhar Railway Station, Northern Railway, Jalandhar.

2. Zonal Manager, Northen Railway Board, Baroda House, New Delhi.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant Sh.DK Sharma Advocate in person.

Sh.GS Kahlon Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S. Bhatia (President)

1. The complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties on the averments that complainants are senior citizens-consumer in the matter of availing themselves of the service of the railway journey from Jalandhar to New Delhi on 25.12.2010 against the railway fare fixed by the opposite parties from time to time. The complainants got the reservation of the seats done for undertaking the journey from Jalandhar to New Delhi and chair car and for further journey from New Delhi to Banglore on 25.12.2010 by IRCTCs e- Tickets Service-Electronic Reservation Slip on 11.12.2010 under transaction ID-0284170773 PNR No.2543343392 by Train No.& Name 12460-ASR-New Delhi Express for 25.12.2010. The complainants when reached the station at 7.00 AM on 25.12.2010 to catch the aforementioned train, it was reported that the train is late by 4 hours. However, after every fifteen minute it was being announced for information of passengers that the train is late by 4 1/2 hours, then 5 hours. Hoping it to be the intimation of correct information, the complainant continued to wait at the Jalandhar station to reach New Delhi by 8.00 PM to board connecting train for Banglore on the same date i.e 25.12.2010. The complainants had arranged the reservation in such a way that the next connecting train is available at New Delhi with sufficient margin in between the arrival of Amritsar-New Delhi Express at New Delhi and the departure of the connecting train for onward journey from New Delhi to Banglore on the same day and date on 25.12.2010. As per original time table, the ASR-New Delhi Express train was reach New Delhi by 1.00 PM. Whereas the next train No.12430 Banglore Rajdhani was to leave at 8.50 on 25.12.2010. The complainants had got the reservation of seats done at Jalandhar in the Banglore Rajdhani again by IRCTCs e-Ticketing Service-Electronic Reservation Slip under transaction ID 0267073254 and PNR No.26413911827 on 26.10.2010 from Jalandhar for journey of 25.12.2010 by the above train. The Rajdhani train was scheduled to leave at 8.50 PM. The Amritsar-New Delhi Express, otherwise scheduled to leave at 7.35 AM. 25.12.2010, was informed to be late by 4 hours which by and by was being got delayed its departure by more than 7 hours. Passengers continued to wait for the train for the information of its being late was not being given at one time but by and by i.e 4 hours, 4 1/2 hours, 5 hours, 6 hours, 6 1/2 hours and finally it came after 7 hours. Had it been intimated initially that the train will start from Amritsar 7 hours late, the complainant would have surrendered the tickets and would have reached Delhi by bus or any other alternative arrangement well before the scheduled departure of Rajdhani Train for Banglore on the date. But it was not to be. Complainants suffered due to deficiency of the opposite parties for which the complainants could not board the train at Delhi/ Nizammudin on 25.12.2010 due to not giving exact information of how many hours Asr-New Delhi was running late on 25.12.2010 which cost the train at Nizammudin, New Delhi. Not only due to the deficiency in service of the opposite parties as aforesaid, the complainants had to forgo the train fare amounting to Rs.2570/- but also had to make alternative arrangements of reaching Banglore by Indigo Air Service-Plane on 26.12.2010, and incur fare of Rs.8281/- plus Rs.7181/- for both the complainants. In all the complainants had to incur expenditure of total of Rs.16,462/- extra. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.2570/- incurred while getting reservation for 25.12.2010 for travelling from Nizammudin to Banglore and for payment of Rs.16,462/- incurred by them for availing services of Indigo Air Service for reaching Banglore. They also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and the complaint being false and frivolous. On merits, they pleaded that it is clearly mentioned in the Railway Time Table, that if the train is running more than three hours late, then full refund is permissible without any deduction, but E-Ticket cannot be cancelled on regular counter, as no cancellation is permitted at the railway counter for E-Ticket. The refund on E-Ticket will be routed through Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation(IRCTC) only. The train No.12460 Dn. was scheduled to depart at 7-35 hours but due to operational reasons train was re-scheduled at 11.00 AM from Amritsar vide control message No.266CHC(P) FZR and was expected at 12.00 hours at Jalandhar i.e to reach four hours and forty minutes late and the train has departed from Amritsar at 13.25 hours and arrived at Jalandhar at 14.35 hours. The above mentioned information was repeatedly and frequently conveyed to the passengers through public address system and through notice board. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Railways Extent Rule, in case of missing the connection for onward journey, due to late running of train, then the passengers can surrender his ticket at the station refund counter, within three hours of the actual arrival of the train, which has been delayed and full refund of the untravelled protion is permissible. It denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered in to evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with copies of documents Ex. C1 to C9 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.

5. After going through the record and hearing the complainant and learned counsel for opposite parties, the present complaint was dismissed vide order 17.5.2012 holding that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute regarding refund of fare. However, the complainants preferred appeal and in appeal the matter was remanded back to this forum to decide the complaint on merits after giving opportunity to lead evidence to the parties, if any. At the time of arguments, complainant stated at bar that he does not press relief for refund of fare and will seek refund of fare through proper channel. He contended that besides refund of fare there were other deficiencies in service as the train departed late by about 7 hours and as a result thereof the connecting train was missed and complainants had to travel by Air for reaching Banglore in time. He contended that complainants spent Rs.16,462/- extra for going to Banglore by Air. Counsel for opposite parties contended that the present complaint is not maintainable and the complainants are not entitled to any compensation. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by complainant and learned counsel for opposite parties. The question of maintainability has already been decided by Hon'ble State Commission while remanding back the case to this forum. From the written reply filed by opposite parties, it is evident that the train departed late by 7 hours. In para 3 of the reply on merits, the opposite parties have pleaded that train No.12460 Dn. was scheduled to depart at 7.35 hours but due to operational reasons it was re-scheduled at 11.00 AM from Amritsar and was expected at 12.00 hours at Jalandhar. It is further in this para of the written reply that the train departed from Amritsar at 13.25 hours and arrived at Jalandhar at 14.35 hours. So train which was scheduled to depart at 7.35 hours actually departed at 14.35 hours i.e after 7 hours. Ex.C-1 is E-Ticket for journey from Jalandhar City to New Delhit and Ex.C-2 is E-Ticket regarding journey from Hajrat Nizammudin to Banglore. From Hajrat Nizammudin the train was scheduled to depart on the same day ie. 25.12.2010 at 8.50 PM(20.50 Hours). Since the train departed from Jalandhar at 14.35 PM, as such the connecting train for Banglore was naturally missed. The complainant contended that it was necessary for the complainants to reach at Banglore in time. So they went to Banglore by Air. Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 are Air tickets of the complainants and as per these tickets they spent Rs.15462/- for Air travel. The complainants had to face harassment and inconvenience due to late running of train from Jalandhar and missing of the connected train and going to Airport. So they are entitled to compensation due to deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

6. In view of above discussion, the complaint is accepted and complainants are awarded Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses from the opposite parties in equal shares. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

12.11.2014 Member President