Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/273

Parmod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Superintendent and Other - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

17 Nov 2021

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :               273 of 2019

Date of Institution:     15.11.2019

 Date of Decision :      17.11.2021   

 

Parmod Kumar son of Ram Kishore c/o Camp Garden Colony, Government Quarter No.05-B, Near Telephone Exchange, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Bathinda.
2. Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Faridkot.
3. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
4. Northern Railway, through Divisional Manager, Ferozepur.

                            .......Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

cc no.-273 of 2019

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Gumdoor Singh Surewala, Ld Counsel for  OP-1 to 4,

 

* * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

(Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs.15/- alongwith interest and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

2                                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 16.10.2019, complainant purchased one railway ticket worth Rs.15/- for going from Bathinda to Faridkot from OP-1. After long waiting by complainant, when train did not come, he approached OP-1, who told him that Delhi Passenger train was cancelled till 31.10.2019. OP-1 sold the ticket to complainant without disclosing about cancellation of train. Complainant made requests to OP-1 to refund or adjust the fare of passenger train ticket but OP-1 instead of admitting his mistake, misbehaved with complainant. and complainant had to purchase a new ticket of Rs.30/-which was scheduled at about 6.30 p.m. Act of OPs in not giving intimation regarding cancellation of said train, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

 

cc no.-273 of 2019

Complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.11.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                           OP-1 to 4 filed reply through counsel wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong, incorrect and asserted that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has misstated the facts and has filed the present complaint only to get compensation. He has not attached the second ticket which can clear all doubts. It is brought before the Forum that there is an enquiry room settled on every Railway Station of answering OPs and it is the duty of every person to enquire about the time of arrival and departure of train through which he wants to travel before purchasing the ticket. Booking clerk has no knowledge about arrival and departure of any train and he is duty bound to provide the ticket demanded from him. No cause of action arises against answering OPs and moreover, complainant purchased the said ticket from Bathinda and thus, this Forum has

 

cc no.-273 of 2019

no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. However, on merits ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part and complainant has filed the present complaint only to get compensation. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 5                                         Ld counsel for complainant tendered in  exparte evidence affidavit of complainant  Ex.C-1 and document Ex C-2 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                        Counsel for OP-1 to 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Virender Kadyan Ex OP-1 and thereafter, closed the same.

7                                              We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                             From the careful perusal of the record it is observed that case of the complainant is that on 16.10.2019, he bought a railway ticket worth Rs.15/- from OP-1 for going to Faridkot from Bathinda. After long waiting, when train did not come, he approached OP-1, who disclosed that Delhi Passenger train was cancelled till 31.10.2019. OP-1 sold the ticket

 

cc no.-273 of 2019

without disclosing about its cancellation. Grievance of the complainant is that despite several requests by complainant to refund or adjust the fare for said train, OP-1 did not accede to his requests. They did not hear his genuine requests and paid no heed to redress his grievance. Rather, OP-1 misbehaved with him. Under compelling circumstances, he had to purchase a new ticket of Rs.30/-which was scheduled at about 6.30 p.m. Act of OPs in not giving timely intimation regarding cancellation of said train, amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. On the contrary, OP-1 to 4 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has not attached the second ticket which can clear all doubts.  As per OPs, there is an enquiry room at every Railway Station and it is the duty of every person to enquire about the arrival and departure time of train. Booking clerk has no knowledge about it and he is duty bound to sell the ticket demanded from him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9                                     To prove his pleadings, complainant has placed on record document Ex C-2 that is copy of ticket that clearly reveals the pleadings of complainant that he purchased the ticket in dispute from OP-1 on 16.10.20219. Through affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated his

 

cc no.-273 of 2019

grievance and made request for refund of rail fare and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses. Complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings and documents produced by complainant are fully authentic and are beyond any doubt. On the other hand, OPs have nothing to contradict the contentions of complainant. Ops did not do anything needful to redress the grievance of complainant and non payment of compensation by OPs for harassment caused to him amounts to deficiency in service. OPs have been deficient in providing services to complainant and have also failed in redressing his grievance.

10                                            We are fully convinced with the evidence and arguments advanced by ld counsel for the complainant. The complainant succeeds in proving his case, so the present complaint is hereby allowed against OPs with direction to them to refund Rs.15/- to complainant, which he paid as rail fare to railway authorities for going to Faridkot. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses incurred by complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to

 

cc no.-273 of 2019

initiate proceedings under Section 71 and 72 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced on

Dated: 17.11.2021

                            

 

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc no.-273 of 2019

Parmod Kumar       Vs        Station Superintendent & Others

 

Present:      Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Gumdoor Singh Surewala, Ld Counsel for  OP-1 to 4,

                  Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint case in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced on

Dated: 17.11.2021

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member