DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __168_ _ OF ___2015
DATE OF FILING :_6.4.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 07/08/2018
Present : President :
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Krishnendu Mukherjee at Flat no.A102, Mayfair Eternity, 256, N.S Road, P.S Sonarpur, South 24-Parganas, Pin-700150.
O.P/O.Ps : Supreme Tours and Travels, a Firm represented by its Sole proprietor Mr. Koushik Banerjee of 15/17, Sourin Roy Road, First Floor, Behala Tram Depot, Kolkata – 34.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Subrata Sarker, Member
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
The O.P is an Authorised Agent of IRCTC ,conducting business of Tour and Travels under the name and style “Supreme Tours and Travels” . The complainant got an appointment for the post of faculty in Mechanical Engineering Department of Jaipur University , Rajasthan. He decided to join his new post on 16.3.2015. The O.P issued an e-ticket for journey of the complainant and his mother to Jaipur on 14.3.2015 in Train no.12307, Howrah-Jaipur Express in A.C Two Tiers , having received Rs.6,645/- on two different dates through his account from the complainant. When the e-ticket was available to the complainant, the complainant came to see , to his utter surprise, that the name of an unknown person namely A.Das is also included in the e-ticket of the complainant. According to the version of the complainant, the name of the unknown person has been inserted in the e-ticket by the O.P surreptitiously without informing anything to him by the O.P. The O.P could not provide identity of A.Das and, therefore, the complainant was forced to cancel the e-ticket for safety reason and also to avoid legal hazards. He i.e the complainant demanded return of Rs.6,645/- on cancellation of his e-ticket along with original Voter Identity Card which was provided to the O.P for booking of e-ticket. But neither money nor the original Voter Identity Card was refunded to the complainant by the O.P. So, the complainant has filed the instant case ,praying for return of Rs.6,645/- ,the original voter identity card , for payment of compensation etc. Hence, arises the case.
Written statement is filed by the O.P ,wherein it is contended that he is an authorized agent of IRCTC. On 11.3.2015 the complainant made a visit to his office and requested him for booking of two Tatkal tickets – one for himself and another for his mother namely G. Mukhopadhyay. The O.P expressed his inability to book the ticket before 12 p.m. Complainant requested him earnestly to book the ticket by any means. He also paid Rs.2080/- only as advance with photocopy of Voter Identity Card. On 13.3.2015 , e-ticket was issued in Nagaur (NGO) Quota , as the Jaipur (J.P) Quota was not available that time. Issue of e-ticket in the name of A.Das is denied by the O.P. Receipt of Rs.3605/- and Rs.1000/- is admitted by the O.P. It is the further case of the O.P that the complainant himself could have cancelled the ticket and could have taken the refund from the Railway Authority. He has no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and the complaint should , therefore, be dismissed .
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE ON AFFIDAVIT
Evidence on affidavit has been led by the complainant but no evidence has been filed on behalf of the O.P and, therefore, the case is proceeded exparte against him. BNA filed herein is kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1, 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for the parties . Perused the petition of complaint, written version of the O.P and the materials on record. Considered all these.
There are some admitted facts ,transpiring on record. Purchase of
e-ticket by the O.P for the complainant and his mother for their journey from Howrah to Jaipur is admitted. Also admitted is the fact that O.P received Rs.6605/- from the complainant, vide para 13 of the written version filed by the O.P. Booking of e-ticket from Howrah to Nagaur (NGO) is also admitted by the O.P. That apart, the copy of e-ticket which has been filed by the complainant herein also proves that a person named A.Das is also entered as a passenger in that e-ticket. Now, upon these admitted facts it is to be seen, whether the O.P has committed any act of deficiency in service on his part. The term “Deficiency” is defined in Section 2(1)(f) of C.P Act, 1986. The deficiency is a fault, imperfection, shortcoming and inadequacy in the quality, nature and performance of a service which is promised to be done, inter alia, by a person , by a contract or otherwise. Coming to the facts of the instant case, we may say that the contract between the complainant and the O.P came into force as soon as the O.P agreed to procure an e-ticket for the complainant to facilitate their journey from Howrah to Jaipur on 14.3.2015. A copy of e-ticket has been produced on record by the complainant and a perusal of the said ticket reveals that the O.P did not book e-ticket for journey of the complainant and his mother from Howrah to Jaipur. The ticket was booked from Howrah to a place named Nagaur. That apart, The complainant asked the O.P to book ticket for two persons only i.e. for himself and his mother G . Mukherjee. But the copy of the e-ticket shows that another person named A.Das has been listed as a passenger in that ticket. According to the complainant, this name of A.Das has been inserted in e-ticket surreptitiously by the O.P and he did not take any consent of him during insertion of A.Das in the e-ticket. It is stated by the complainant in his evidence that he was forced to cancel the e-ticket for security reason and to avoid the legal hazards. In our opinion, the complainant has not deliberately cancelled the e-ticket. The e-ticket has been cancelled not for any lapses on the part of the complainant but for the fault on the part of the O.P. Complainant wanted to have an e-ticket for his journey from Howrah to Jaipur ,but e-ticket is not for a journey from Howrah to Jaipur; it is for a journey from Howrah to Nagaur. A person will not be willing to take a break journey ; everyone wants to reach his destination by a direct train. The complainant also desired to do so and, therefore, he made a request to the O.P to procure an e-ticket for his journey from Howrah to direct Jaipur. The O.P did not act in terms of that request of the complainant. It is imperfections in discharge of service by the O.P and such imperfection is treated as a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Insertion of an unknown person in the e-ticket of the complainant is also an act of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
It is contended on behalf of the O.P that the complainant was well within his liberty to cancel the e-ticket and take refund from the Railway Authority and that he has no deficiency in service in the matter of cancellation of e-ticket. This contention of the O.P appears to be not acceptable to us. The e-ticket was issued by the O.P to the complainant and the complainant has been forced to cancel the e-ticket due to some lapses on the part of the O.P. So, it is bunden duty of the O.P to cancel the e-ticket and
to return the money received by him from the complainant. This duty has not at all been discharged by the O.P. Had it been properly discharged by the O.P, the complainant would not have come up before this Forum with the filing of the instant case. Refusal to return the said money to the complainant by the O.P is imperfection in discharge of his duty and, therefore, it is also a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
The journey date of the complainant was on 16.3.2015. e-ticket was cancelled on 14.3.2015 i.e only two days ahead of the date of journey. Purpose of journey of the complainant was to joint his new assignment at Jaipur on 16.3.2015. If he failed to reach Jaipur on 16.3.2015, there was every chance of him losing the service. There was every chance of the appointment letter being cancelled, if he failed to join his par in the Jaipur University on 16.3.2015. All the circumstances are likely to create a violent ripples in the mind of the complainant. These ripples are surely the source of mental agony suffered by the complainant. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to get compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to him by the O.P. The complainant is ,therefore, entitled to get compensation for his harassment and mental agony caused to him by the O.P.
It is alleged by the complainant that the O.P has not returned the original Voter Identity Card of him, which he provided to the O.P for booking e-ticket. Was the original Voter Identity Card actually given to the O.P at the time of e-ticket booking. No original voter identity card is required for booking e-ticket and a copy of voter identity card is sufficient for this purpose. Each and everyone knows this very fact. The complainant is an highly educated person and he is also supposed to know this very fact. This is not believable to us that he provided the original voter identity card to the O.P at the time of e-ticket booking. So, in the facts and circumstances as transpiring on record, we are unable to pass any order in favour of the complainant in so far as the prayer for returning original voter identity card is concerned.
In the result, the case success.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.P with a cost of rs.5000/-.
The O.P is directed to refund Rs.6645/- to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant by him within a month of this order, failing which, the compensation amount and the refund amount and also the amount of cost as referred to above will bear interest @8% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
