BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

C.C NO-97/2016

Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy,Member (W).

Pradip Kumar Lath, aged about 55 years,

S/O-Late Kesar Deo Lath,

R/O- Cheruapara,P.O-Modipara,

P.S-Town,Dist-Sambalpur.                                                             …..Complainant

Vrs.

1. Station Superintendent, Sambalpur,

E.Co. Railway, Sambalpur,

At/P.O- Khetrajpur, Dist-Sambalpur.

2. The DRM,

E.Co. Railway,Sambalpur,

At/P.O- Khetrajpur,Dist-Sambalpur.

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant:-  Miss Anita Chhabria, Advocate.
2. For the O.P-1& 2            :-         Sri. D.K.Thakur, Advocate & Associates.

DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 08.03.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant has booked a ticket to travel from Sambalpur to Bhubaneswar by Train No-18426, Puri-Durg Express vide PNR No-676-0902887 on 4^th November 2016 in 2A-Class on payment of Rs.841 to the railway ticket counter of the O.Ps. On the day of travel the Complainant filed a TDR which is repudiated by the O.P without any reason.  The Train was late by 6 hours but the O.Ps has falsely announced that it is running 44 minutes then the schedule timings. The O.P-1 gave him a late certificate that the Train will arrive at 6.35 am/pm Sambalpur but it arrived at 12.20 am. As the Complainant has to attend an urgent meeting at Bhubaneswar finding no way he has booked another ticket  in another Train in the last moment in 1^st Class A.C on payment of higher charges. The O.Ps did not refund the ticket fare amount which amounts to deficiency in service and Monopolistic Trade Practice on the part of the O.Ps. In this process the Complainant has lost time, money and goodwill and fell in irreparable loss. The cause of action arose on dtd. 4^th November 2016 when the O.ps denied to refund the Train fare to the Complainant for which he constrained to seek relief from this Commission as per the Petition.

According to the Advocate for the O.Ps the Complainant has not approached the proper Forum there is exists a Railway Claim Tribunal to solve these types of disputes. He has admitted the facts of availing tickets by the Complainant and the fact of running the Train late by 6 hours. He has also furnished the guidelines for getting refund of tickets in certain terms and condition formulated by Indian Railways under Railway Passengers (cancellation of Ticket and Refund of Fare) Rule-2015 with effect from 12.11.2015. But he claims that as per record of O.Ps there is such TDR was issued to the Complainant by the O.Ps. Hence the question of refund does not arise.  The Complainant has not claimed the refund in proper manner stipulated under provision of Law mentioned in the above said Rules. Hence prayed to dismiss the Complaint petition with cost.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.2019?
2. Whether the Commission has the jurisdiction to try this case,
3. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a ticket to travel from Sambalpur to Bhubaneswar Train No-18426, Puri-Durg Express vide PNR No-676-0902887 on 4^th November 2016 in 2A-Class. Secondly, we perused the C.P. Act., 1986. it is held and reported in 2002 C.T. J page No.477 the Hon’ble National Commission observed that the C.P.Act, 1986 passed by the Parliament with a hope that the interest of the consumers has to be protected in order to curb the exploitation from the service . Section-3 of the C.P. Act is worded in widest terms and leaves no one in doubt that the provisions of C.P. Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Thus even if any other Act provides for any remedy to the litigant for Redressal by that remedy a litigant can go to District Consumer Forum, That remedy exists in any other law which creates the right is no bar to the Forum assuming jurisdiction. The word In addition to in Section-3 makes it clear that the  are in addition to the existing laws in force and the C.P. Act provides additional remedies to the Consumer. So the argument of the O.P. that the dispute will be decided by Railway Claims Tribunal only is not correct as it cannot over ride the provision of the C.P. Act.  TDR (Ticket Deposit Receipt) is meant for people who do not undertake a train journey despite having a booked ticket and want to apply for a refund. IRCTC, the e-ticketing arm of Indian Railways, provides the facility for online filing of TDR. As per the IRCTC Refund Rules for Train Running behind Schedule by More Than 3 hours and the passenger has not travelled, a TDR has to be filed before the actual departure of the train for availing full refund.

In the instant case the schedule departure as admitted by the O.P. is 06.35 a.m/p.m hrs. But in the Late Certificate the revised expected time is at 12.20 a.m. But as per the TDR request repudiation report it is observed that the schedule departure of the Train was 00.30 a.m on dtd.04.11.2016 and the Complainant has filed for TDR at 01.14.03 a.m on the same day which is after/before 44 minutes which is not as per Railway Passengers (cancellation of Ticket and Refund of Fare)Rule-2015. There is nothing to disbelieve the document and version of the complainant. The contention raised by the complainant cannot be ruled out. Hence the time of departure given the late certificate and the ticket were contradictory. The Complainant has filed the TDR much more time before the schedule departure as per the late certificate given by the Railway Authority. From the above it is clear that the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service along with unfair trade practice to the Complainant. Hence we order as under.

ORDER

That the Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to refund ticket fare a sum of Rs.841.00 to the complainant. The OPs are jointly and severally further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) by way of compensation to the Complainant for causing him mental, physical and financial loss and agony and Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) as litigation costs. This amount shall be paid by the OPs to the Complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on this amount from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., 14.12.2016 till its realisation."

Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e, on 8^th day of March 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                                                                            

-Sd/-                                                                                                  -Sd/-

MEMBER(W)                                                                                   PRESIDENT

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             by me.

                                                                               -Sd/-

   PRESIDENT