DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.362 of 09-06-2014

Decided on 16-10-2014

Davinder Bansal aged about 30 years S/o Mahinder Pal Bansal R/o H.No.3701, Gali Panditan Wali, Mehna Chowk, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Station Superintendent, Northern Railway, Bathinda.

2.Union of India, Ministry of Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, through its General Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Sunder Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Vinod Garg, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had booked 3 return AC chair railway tickets vide PNR No.213-5720002 from Sakur Basti to Bathinda and paid the amount of Rs.1047/- with journey date 11.6.2012 in train No.12481 i.e. Intercity (Delhi to Sri Ganganagar). The tickets of the complainant were kept in the waiting list that were not confirmed till 11.6.2012. As the complainant's tickets were not confirmed, he requested the Station Master, Sakur Basti to refund the amount of Rs.1047/-, he asked the complainant to take the refund from the opposite party No.1 at Bathinda, from where he booked the abovesaid tickets, as such the complainant had to return to Bathinda by purchasing the ordinary tickets from the railway station, Sakur Basti. On reaching at Bathinda the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.1047/-, it asked the complainant to fill TDR form. Accordingly, the complainant filled TDR form dated 12.6.2012, but the opposite parties did not refund him the amount of Rs.1047/- till date. The complainant time and again approached the opposite party No.1, but it has been putting off the matter on one or the other pretext and lastly flatly refused to refund the amount. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.1047/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.1047/- from the date of payment till realization besides cost and compensation or to give him any other additional or alternative relief for which he may be found entitled to.

2. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, as only Railway Claims Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint for the claim regarding the refund of fare and freight as per section 13 and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act and jurisdiction of any other court/Fora is barred as such this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant has concealed the fact that he did not approach the opposite parties for the refund within 6 hours after departure of the train as such they repudiated his claim as per rules vide letter dated 28.8.2012. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had booked 3 return AC chair railway tickets for train No.12481 from Sakur Basti to Bathinda and denied that the complainant requested the Station Master/Superintendent of Sakur Basti for the refund of Rs.1047/- or the official asked him to take the refund from the opposite party No.1 at Bathinda. As per the rules the passenger can get his ticket cancelled and refund from the passenger reservation system within 6 hours after departure of the train, but he failed to do so. The complainant has not produced any ordinary tickets alleged to be purchased by him and his family from Railway Station, Sakur Basti. The opposite parties further pleaded that mere filling of TDR form does not guarantee for the refund of the fare. After registration of the claim, the matter is examined on the merits and disposed off in accordance with Coaching Tariff Rules. In the present case the tickets were not surrendered within the prescribed time limit of 6 hours, rather after the said period as such the claim was repudiated in accordance with the rules and complainant was intimated accordingly vide office letter No.DNR-240712-S-11406 dated 28.8.2012.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly, the complainant had booked 3 return AC chair railway tickets for train No.12481 vide PNR No.213-5720002 from Sakur Basti to Bathinda by paying the amount of Rs.1047/-. The tickets of the complainant were not confirmed and kept in the waiting list.

6. The complainant contended that he requested the Station Master of Sakur Basti to refund the amount of Rs.1047/-, he asked the complainant to take the refund from the opposite party No.1 at Bathinda, from where he booked the abovesaid tickets. After reaching at Bathinda the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.1047/-, but the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to fill TDR form dated 12.6.2012, but till date the opposite parties have failed to refund the amount of Rs.1047/-.

7. On the legal side the submission of the opposite parties is that this complaint is not maintainable in this Forum, as it has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, the Railway Claims Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint for the claims regarding the refund of fare and freight as per section 13 and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act and jurisdiction of any other court/Fora is barred and relied upon the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case cited at 2008(2) CLT Page 93 (NC). On merits the submission of the opposite parties is that the complainant has concealed the fact that he did not approach them for the refund within 6 hours after departure of the train. As per the rules the passenger can get his ticket cancelled and refund from the passenger reservation system within 6 hours after departure of the train, but he failed to do so. The opposite parties further submitted that mere filling of TDR form does not guarantee for the refund of the fare. After registration of the claim, the matter is examined on the merits and disposed off in accordance with Coaching Tariff Rules. The complainant has not surrendered the tickets within the prescribed time limit of 6 hours, rather after the said period and his claim was repudiated in accordance with the rules and the same was intimated to him vide letter No.DNR-240712-S-11406 dated 28.8.2012.

8. The repudiation letter dated 28.8.2012, Ex.OP1/1, shows the reason 'Ticket was not surrendered within 6 hours of actual departure of train', for this the opposite parties have placed on file Ex.OP1/3, Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No.26, Part I (Volume I), the relevant portion of Clause 213.6 of this Tariff is reproduced hereunder:-

“Unused ticket on which reservation has been made:-

1) Subject to the provision of these rules, if a ticket on which reservation of a seat or berth has been made is presented by the passenger or his agent to a station master for cancellation, refund of fare shall be made after deduction cancellation charges from the fare as follows:-

…..C(ii) Six hours, when the ticket is for a destination station of more than two hundred kilometers but upto five hundred kilometers

2) No refund shall be granted at the station if the ticket is surrendered for cancellation after the expiry of the period mentioned under clause (c) of sub-rule (1).”

A perusal of 'Guidelines for Passenger' of Ticket Deposit Receipt, Ex.C2 shows:-

“1) Passenger is required to send an application for refund (in the application form printed on reverse) to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds) at the address printed on the top of this TDR. This receipt in original, must be returned. The application must reach the concerned refund office at the earliest but not later than 90 days from the date of journey.”

The guidelines are issued by Chief Commercial Manager, (Refunds), Northern Railway. In the above mentioned guidelines it has been specifically mentioned that the application must reach the concerned refund office at the earliest but not later than 90 days from the date of journey, meaning thereby this Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) has been issued in the contradiction to the Clause 213.6, c(2), thus the complainant cannot suffer in the hand of the opposite parties due to this contradiction in the ticket deposit receipt and Clause 213.6.

9. On the legal side the opposite parties submitted that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, as Railway Claims Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint for the claim regarding the refund of fare and freight as per section 13 and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act and jurisdiction of any other court/Fora is barred and referred to the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in case cited at 2008(2) CLT Page 93 (NC), but as per the precedent laid by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Union of India & Ors. Vs. J.S Kanwar, 2010 (2) CLT 534; Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, 2009 (1) CLT 555; North West Railway & Anr. Vs. Krishna Goyal, 2009 (1) CLT 550 and precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in case titled as Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mishra, 2009 (1) CLT 352, the consumer Fora has the additional remedy to try and decide the present complaint as provided under Section 3 of the 'Act'. Section 3 is reproduced hereunder:-

“Act not in derogation of any other law-The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

Hence the legal objection taken by the opposite parties is not tenable.

10. Thus keeping in view the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that the complainant should not suffer in the hands of the opposite parties due to the contradiction in the guidelines mentioned on TDR, Ex.C2 and Clause 213.6 of Coaching Tariff No.26.

11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1047/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum since filing of the TDR form till realization.

12. The compliance of this order be done with 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

16-10-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member