DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 1135/2015
Date of Institution : 30.10.2015
Date of Decision : 19.10.2016
1. Roshan Lal Singla aged about 66 years s/o Sh. Siri Ram Singla.
2. Kiran Singla w/o Roshan Lal Singla, residents of House No. 27, Jeeta Singh Nagar, New Court Chowk, Barnala. …Complainants
Versus
1. Station Master, Railway Station, Northern Railway, Barnala.
2. Senior Divisional Manager-III, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. RK Singla counsel for the complainant.
Sh. NK Singla counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainants Roshan Lal Singla and Kiran Singla (hereinafter referred as complainants) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against Station Master, Railway Station, Barnala and Senior Divisional Manager, Ambala Cantt (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the wife of the complainant No. 1 being old age was suffering with joint pain in knees and lower back which causes her difficulty in moving from one place to other. Therefore, they took appointment from Dr. Yas Gulati, Orthopedician at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi for 25.9.2015 at 11.30 AM for check up of complainant No. 2. They booked their tickets from Barnala to New Delhi in Fazilka Delhi Express in AC coach for 24.9.2015. The departure time of the said train was 6.12 AM. They alleged that they have reached the railway station at about 5.50 AM and there was an announcement that the said train was late by 3.30 hours and it was also displayed at the entrance of the railway station on their electronic display board at Sr. No. 1 indicating that the said train would be arriving at 9.42 AM. Therefore, the complainants came back to their residence on Rickshaw. Dr. Sofat and Mrs Sofat were also present at railway station and met them at that time. Again the complainant reached the railway station at 9.25 AM and at that time still the display board was showing the time of reaching the said train at 9.42 AM. They went to the platform and to the place where the AC coach was to be halted. At 9.35 AM a person present at the railway station asked the complainants regarding their wait at the railway station. On this they replied that they were waiting for the Fazilka Delhi Express train. The said person informed them that the said train has already been left the station at about 9.00 AM. Then the complainant immediately approached the opposite party No. 1 and lodged their complaint orally. Moreover, the opposite party No. 1 immediately inquired the matter from one of the employees of the railway board and found that the electronic board was still showing the reaching time of the train at 9.42 AM despite the fact that the said train had already left the railway station at about 9.00 AM. Even, the opposite party No. 1 felt sorry for inconvenience caused to them and ordered the concerned authority to set right the display board. The complainants requested the opposite party No. 1 to give refund of their tickets to the tune of Rs. 555/- which they spent for purchasing the tickets. But opposite party No. 1 told that it was not possible to refund the amount and wrote “Too Late” on the backside of the ticket. Then the complainant immediately purchased other tickets for the same train for 25.9.2015 and paid a sum of Rs. 555/- again for the same purpose with the hope that the doctor would attend the complainant No. 2 without appointment. It is further alleged that on 25.9.2015 the said train reached at Delhi at about 1.30 PM and it was not possible for the doctor to check up and the complainant No. 2 remained unattended.
3. The complainants further alleged that the daughter of the complainant is working as Medical Officer at Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital, at New Delhi and she got checked the complainant No. 2 from an Orthopedician of Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital at New Delhi and they returned from Delhi on 26.9.2015 at 10.45 PM and reached at Barnala at 3.08 AM.
4. Thus, it is alleged that due to the negligence of the opposite parties the complainant No. 2 did not got her check up from the doctor from whom she had taken the appointment. Due to the negligence of the opposite parties they have suffered not only monetary loss but also mental agony and harassment. Moreover, complainant No. 1 could not attend the court work on 24.9.2015 and this amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To refund the amount of Rs. 555/- and fare of rickshaw Rs. 160/- alongwith interest.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice of this Forum the opposite parties appeared and filed written reply taking legal objections interalia on the ground of jurisdiction, maintainability, non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties, estoppal, not coming to this Forum with clean hands and no cause of action.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant booked their tickets for 24.9.2015 in Fazilka Delhi Express from Barnala to Sabzi Mandi and the departure time was 6.12 AM from Barnala. It is also submitted as correct that on 24.9.2015 there was an announcement in the loud speaker at about 5.30 AM that the said train was expected to be late by 3.30 hours. It is further submitted that on single line section it is difficult to plot accurate running of trains and the trains may get more late during crossing of other trains. They further submitted that it is the duty of the passenger to watch the running of trains and it has been clearly written on the booking window that the train can arrive in advance or late. Fazilka Delhi Express train on 24.9.2015 was expected running late by 3.30 hours but the said delay was reduced to 3.04 hours and the said train reached Barnala at 9.16 AM and departed from there at 9.18 AM. Moreover, after departure of the train the ticket for specific train cannot be refunded. They have denied the other allegations of the complainants and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In order to prove their case, the complainants have tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant No. 1 Ex.C-1, copies of tickets Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, copies of prescription slips Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainants the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Promila Gupta Senior Divisional Operations Manager, Ambala Cantt Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
10. At the very outset Sh. NK Singla Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties has vehemently contended that the matter in question is relating to the claim for refund of the fare by the complainants and in view of the Section 15 of the Railways Claim Tribunal the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred. In support of his argument the learned counsel has made a reference to the citation 2011 (3) CLT-1 in Ramadhar Shukla Versus South East Central Railway and another decided by Chhattisgarh State Commission, Raipur.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the Consumer Act is comprehensive one and the remedy provided in this Act cannot be taken out from its purview as the complainant is a consumer as the opposite parties failed to provide services to the complainants.
12. There is no dispute that the present case is relating to the refund of the amount of Rs. 555/- for the value of the tickets purchased by the complainants from the opposite parties alongwith other charges. It is relevant to refer the Sections 13 and 15 of the Railways Claims Tribunal which reads as.-
“13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal.- (1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act.-
(a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter-VII of the Railways Act in respect of the claims for-
(i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;
(ii) compensation payable under Section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder; and
(b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.
(1A) The Claims Tribunal shall also exercise, on and from the date of commencement of the provisions of Section 12A of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that date by any civil court in respect of claim for compensation now payable by the railway administration under Section 124A of the said Act or the rules made thereunder.
(2) The provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989) 1 and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.
15. Bar of jurisdiction;- On and from the appointed day no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in (sub- sessions (1) and (1A) of Section 13.
13. Apart from the above in 2011 (3) CLT-1 supra the question before the Hon'ble Commission was for the refund of the fare which was excess amount charged by the railways to the tune of Rs. 118/-. The Hon'ble Commission held in Para No. 4 and 5 that claims regarding refund of fare or part thereof are only maintainable before the Railways Claim Tribunal. Complaint not maintainable before the Consumer Fora and rightly dismissed by the District Forum. The complainant has not cited any law or citation to rebut the case of the opposite parties.
14. Now coming to the present case as it is related to refund of fare, therefore, in view of Section 15 of the Railways Claim Tribunal and the citation as mentioned above, the present complaint is not maintainable and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, the complainants are at liberty to file complaint before the appropriate Forum, if they so desire, which shall exclude the time spent by the complainants for prosecuting the complaint in this Forum at Barnala while computing the period of limitation for filing the complaint. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
19th Day of October 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
