KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 830/2015
JUDGMENT DATED: 01.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 188/2014 of DCDRC, Kasaragod)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
The Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruchirappalli, Pin-620 001.
(By Adv. S. Renganathan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Thamban K., S/o late Damodaran, Paliyerikovvaal, Karivellur P.O., Kannur District, Kerala-671 521.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the 1st opposite party in C.C. No. 188/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (“the District Commission” for short) who in this appeal challenges the order passed by the District Commission, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondent.
2. The respondent booked ticket up to Chennai in train No. 12841 and from Chennai to Payyannur in train No. 12601 on 19.09.2013. The date of journey was 04.10.2013. But the ticket from Chennai to Payyannur was booked for 05.10.2013 instead of 04.10.2013. In the said circumstances, the respondent had to travel by another train spending money.
3. The appellant would contend that it was due to the mistake in the application for reservation, submitted by the respondent, that the ticket was issued for the journey on 05.10.2013. It was further contended by the appellant that there was no mistake on the part of the Railway in this regard.
4. The evidence consists of the evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 for the respondent. DW1 was examined for the appellant.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. It is admitted by both sides that the respondent booked the tickets on 19.09.2013. Exts. A1 and A2 are the said railway tickets. It is clearly stated in Ext. A2 that the said ticket was for the journey on 05.10.2013. It is stated in Ext. A1 that the said ticket was for the journey on 04.10.2013. The respondent would contend that the respondent had submitted application correctly. However, the mistake was crept in due to the fault of the clerk who had issued the tickets.
7. It is in the evidence that the application form for reservation, submitted by a party, would be kept by the railway only for a period of six months. Even though the tickets in the present case were booked on 19.09.2013, the complaint was filed by the respondent only on 21.08.2014, which was after a period of eleven months from the date of booking the tickets. Therefore, the application form submitted by the respondent was not available with the Railways. Since the complaint was filed after a period of six months, the Railways cannot be blamed for not producing the application form submitted by the respondent for booking the tickets.
8. It is also to be noted that the respondent obtained the physical tickets on 19.09.2013. Exts. A1 and A2 were the said physical tickets, which were readily available with the respondent from19.09.2013 till the date of journey. The journey was only on 04.10.2013. Even though Exts. A1 and A2 were with the respondent for such a long period prior to the journey, the respondent could not notice any mistake with regard to the date, as alleged by the respondent. The evidence of the appellant would clearly show that there was no difficulty in cancelling the ticket as per rules. If the respondent had noticed the mistake earlier, he could have definitely cancelled the ticket and booked another ticket. No material has been produced by the respondent to indicate that there was any mistake on the part of the Railways as alleged by the respondent. There is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that there was any mistake or deficiency in service on the part of the Railways in this regard, particularly when the physical tickets collected by the respondent were with the respondent from 19.09.2013 till the date of journey. Thus, having gone through the relevant inputs, we do not find anything to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Railways as alleged by the respondent. In the said circumstances, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained and consequently we set aside the same.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 188/2014 stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
