Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/885/2017

Sanjeevan Guru - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Master, Railway Station - Opp.Party(s)

Nitesh Singhi

16 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/885/2017
Date of Institution	:	28/12/2017
Date of Decision	:	16/10/2018

 

Sanjeevan Guru S/o Sh. Jaspal Chand Guru R/o H.No.1024, Phase-VII, Mohali (Punjab).

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

1.      Station Master, Railway Station, Chandigarh.

 

2.      Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), Northern Railway, 2^nd Floor, Station Building, New Delhi – 110055.

 

3.      Station Master, Railway Station, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Nitesh Singhi, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. S.S. Rana, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant booked four 2^nd A.C. railway tickets on 11.11.2016 for their journey from Mumbai to Chandigarh on 10.01.2017 by paying Rs.10,060/-. However, on realizing that on the scheduled date of journey, due to urgency the Complainant along with his family members, cannot not perform the journey by train and would reach Chandigarh by Air, a request was accordingly made to the Opposite Parties to refund the fare on 24.11.2016. Thereafter, the Complainant continuously enquired about the status of his refund but no useful information was given by the Opposite Parties. Ultimately, after continuous requests, entreaties and Complaints, the Opposite Parties closed the case of the Complainant arbitrarily despite the fact that the Complainant had duly completed by the formalities without any delay. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties opposed the claim by filing their reply, inter alia, admitting the booking as well as cancellation of the tickets in question by the Complainant. It has been submitted that the claim for refund of fare against the tickets of Complainant was considered and approval of higher authorities a sum of Rs.9220/- was sanctioned as refundable and the same was sent to the Complainant on 22.02.2018 vide Green Pay Order No. 657456 dated 13.02.2018. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have meticulously gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
6.         Admittedly, in the present case, the A.C. railway tickets were booked by the Complainant, on 11.11.2016, by paying an amount of Rs.10,060/-, to travel on 10.01.2017 from Mumbai to Chandigarh.
7.         It is also not disputed that the Complainant made a request for refund in the same month i.e. on 24.11.2016, but till the filing of the present Complaint i.e. 28.12.2017, there was no initiative taken by the Opposite Parties for making refund of the admissible amount to the Complainant.
8.         As per the written statement of the Opposite Parties, the claim for the refund of the fare against tickets of the Complainant was considered and accordingly, an amount of Rs.9220/- was sanctioned as refundable amount which was duly sent to him on 22.02.2018 vide Green Pay Order No. 657456 dated 13.02.2018. Hence, it has been contended by the Opposite Parties that as the refund has already been made, they cannot be held liable for any kind of deficiency in service.
9.         Perusal of the record clearly reveals that the request of the Complainant was initiated in the month of Nov. 2016 and the refundable amount was sent to the Complainant in the month of Feb. 2018, meaning thereby that the Opposite Parties took a fairly long time in refunding the amount to the Complainant, especially when there was no fault or shortcoming on the part of the Complainant.
10.         The Opposite Parties themselves admitted that the delay in refunding the amount to the Complainant had arisen on account of loss of the tickets in transit when the same were duly submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties and hence departmental inquiries were conducted and therefore long time was taken for the verification of the facts.  However, we are not impressed with the same. It is a proven fact that the Complainant had to approach the Opposite Parties time & again for getting his refund and in the absence of which, he had to approach this Forum for justice. Had, Opposite Parties been vigilant in refunding the amount promptly, complainant would not have been put to unnecessary harassment and mental tension, who otherwise had to knock at the door of this Forum for seeking redressal by expending money on litigation. Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties for inordinately delaying the genuine refund claim of the Complainant, proves deficiency in service on their part, which in turn has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.
11.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

[a]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[b]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

12.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties. In default, the Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @9% p.a. on the directions at Sr. No. (a) above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as at Sr. No. (b) above.

 

13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
16/10/2018		[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
		Member	President
“Dutt”