Presented by Sri B.K.Pati, Member:- <br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> On Dt. 29/07/2008 the Complainant, along with his wife boarded Rourkela-Puri passenger train at 8.00 am purchasing ticket No. Y-67528387 in the hope of boarding the Bilaspur-Kantabanji train from Sambalpur to Barpali. Reaching Jharsuguda, he came to know that the train will not move beyond Jharsuguda and Bilaspur-Kantanbanji train has been cancelled and will run only from Sambalpur onwards. When approached, the Station Master at Jharsuguda refused to refund the balance of ticket money. Being senior citizens and finding no alternative, the Complainant hired a taxi from Jharsuguda to Barpali by paying Rs. 1,600/-(Rupees one thousand six hundred)only. The Complainant contends that he failed to understand how a ticket was issued to Barpali when it was known that the train will not move beyond Jharsuguda.<br /> <br /> The Complainant claims back ticket money of Rs. 60/-(Rupees sixty)only, taxi fare Rs.1,600/-(Rupees one thousand six hundred)only, and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards compensation as the petitioner suffered mental tension and agony for the alleged negligence and deficiency of service by the railway authority.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) in his version, questions the maintainability of the complaint in view of fact and law involved, jurisdiction of this Forum to adjudicate upon the complaint seeking refund of fare which falls within the purview of Railway Claims Tribunal Act as well as due to alleged absence of cause of action for the purpose. This Opposite Party further claims that the railway is fully exonerated from its liability to entertain the compensation claimed by the Complainant. As regards the issuance of ticket up to Barpali the Opposite Party contends that the ticket is valid for any train throughout the day going towards Barpali on the relevant day. It denies that the Station Master of Jharsuguda Station refused to refund the untraveled portion of the ticket as there is provision for such refund after deducting 10% of fare for the untraveled portion of the journey after returning fare of the traveled portion subject to minimum fare to 100(one hundred) kilometer. The distance traveled by the Complainant from Rourkela to Jharsugude being 101(one hundred one) kilometer, he was fully entitled to get the refund accordingly. The burden of proof lies with the Complainant that he has approached for refund. There is no cause of action for the complaint, claims the Opposite Party and prays for dismissal thereof with compensatory cost.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) has been set ex-parte and Opposite Party No.3(three) deleted from the complaint on the prayer of the Complainant.<br /> Perused the Complaint, version of Opposite Party No.1(one) along with copies of documents filed and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the existing laws purporting to facilitate inexpensive and speedy socio-economic justice to the citizens. It neither takes away the right of other existing laws to operate in their given fields nor does any other law debar the Consumer Protection Act from exercising its jurisdiction over subjects that have been categorically brought within its ambit through this enactment by the Parliament. “Transport” being very much a vital component of “Services” under this Act, this Forum has the power to adjudicate upon this matter, whether passenger or goods. The Consumer has the option to seek redressal either in a Consumer Law agency or The Railway Claims Tribunal. The Complainant faced inconvenience while traveling in the Train of the Opposite Parties. Little wonder, the Complainant is legally competent to and factually has a cause of action to file a complaint in this Forum. The Opposite Party No.1(one) having its branch office at Bargarh the present Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. <br /> <br /> As regards the issue of ticket in view of the prior cancellation of a number of trains the Opposite Party No.1(one) maintained that the ticket was valid for any train going towards Barpali throughout the relevant day. The Complainant was also entitled to get refund after deducting 10% (ten percent) of fare for the untraveled portion of the journey. It is the case of the Complainant that on being approached the Station Master at Jharsuguda refused to refund the balance ticket money. <br /> <br /> The Complainant has booked his ticket in Rourkela-Puri passenger train with intention to board Bilaspur-Katanbaji passenger train from Sambalpur to Barpali. The cost of the ticket in an express train is substantially higher than that of a passenger train. Besides, the Opposite Party No.1(one) does not disclose as to which other trains were running on the relevant day from Jharsuguda towards Sambalpur and Barpali in which the Complainant could have traveled with the ticket he had booked. The inconvenience caused to the Complainant in the mid-journey due to negligence of issuing ticket when the onward move of the train from Jharsuguda had been canceled amounts to deficiency of service by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In view of the above finding, the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) are directed, jointly and severally, to refund the balance amount of ticket of the untraveled portion of journey, to the Complainant and pay him a cost and compensation of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees three thousand )only within thirty days hence, failing which both the amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent ) interest per annum till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.