DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.116/2019 & 843/2014
Sh. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate
CH. No. B-91, BGS Block,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi- 110054
….Complainant
Versus
The Chairman of Railway Board
Principal Secretary Rail Ministry
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
General Manager
Northern Railway Head Quarter,
Baroda House, New Delhi- 55
Div. Railway Manager
Baroda House, New Delhi- 55
Station Master/Sudtt.
Station Building, New Delhi- 110001
Chief Commercial Manager (Refund)
2nd Floor, Station Building, New Delhi
Misc. Clerk of Counter No.36
Near Platform 1st Floor,
New Delhi Rly. Station, New Delhi
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 16.06.2017
Date of Order : 03.12.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to OP to pay a sum of Rs.2,30,130/-, Rs.130/- as cost of railway ticket and Rs.2,20,000/- on various accounts. This complaint was earlier registered as CC No. 843/14 DCDRC at ITO however by the order of the Hon’ble State Commission the matter was transferred to DCDRC-II and was then numbered as CC No.116/19.
- It is the case of the complainant that he booked a confirmed railway ticket of Chandigarh Delhi Express vide train No.04032 (PNR No.244-2794106) from Kurukshetra to Delhi on 22.12.2012 wherein the travelling time was mentioned as 17.17 p.m and travel date was 24.12.2012.
- It is stated by the complainant that he reached Kurukshetra Railway Station at 3.00PM on 24.12.2012 and found no information was shown on the railway Notice Board regarding the said train. On enquiry, it was found that the said train is running two hours late. Thereafter, after two hours he again enquired the status and was told that the train is cancelled at 7.00 PM.
- It is the case of the complainant that on account of cancellation of the aforesaid train the complainant could not travel on 24.12.2012 and sought a refund; however, he was told that the reservation ticket is not showing so he was told to try after 72 hours.
- It is the case of the complainant that when he visited reservation counters at Old Delhi Railway Station and met Station Master at Old Delhi Railway Station, he was told it would be refunded within two to three days.
- It is stated that the complainant then sent a letter to Railway Ministry, General Manager, Northern Railway, Chief Commercial Manager (CCM) station, New Delhi dated 07.02.2013. The said letters are annexed as Annexure A & B.
- It is further stated that the complainant went to New Delhi Railway Station on 01.03.2013 and submitted his Railway Reservation Ticket against receipt after which CCM sent a Pay Order of Rs.130/- without any damage and compensation. The said pay order is annexed as annexure D.
- It is the case of the complainant that on 30.05.2013 he went to the New Delhi Railway Station and sought refund, but the refund clerk refused the payment without any reasonable ground and reason after behaving badly with the complainant.
- It is stated that the complainant wrote complaint letter dated 03.06.2013 to Executive Director, New Delhi and General Manager New Delhi on the part of rough and bad behaviour of the clerk, who was later found to be Shri Mohd. Irfan. The said person then called up and asked the complainant for the original pay order and wanted to know about the complaint filed.
- It is stated that the complainant went to see the said Shri Irfan along with original pay order and when he called the Shri Irfan on his mobile, the complainant was told that he was out of Delhi.
- It is further stated by the complainant that despite various notices dated 16.08.2014, 19.08.14, 20.08.2014, 21.08.2014 no reply was received except from CCM, New Delhi.
- It is stated by the complainant that he had to suffer on account of the act of OP had to suffer chilly weather on 24.12.2012 when the temperature was 5 degrees C.
- Per contra, the OP, in its written statement has taken up the preliminary objections that the present complaint is barred as per sections 13 & 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
- It is also stated that Chairman, Railway Board is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It is stated that the complaint is totally misconceived, bad and liable to be dismissed with costs.
- On merits, OP has not disputed many facts as far as cancellation of train, issuance of pay order etc., issuance of legal notice etc. is concerned. It is stated by them that there is no provision for payment of damage and expenses in Tariff Rules.
- The OP has denied that the railway officials had acted badly with the complainant. It is stated by the OP that in their reply to the Legal Notice the “railway administration did not guarantee the arrival and departure of trains at the time specified in the time-table in our will though acceptable for any loss or inconvenience which may arise to a passenger from delays or detention to themselves or their luggage”.
- Reply to the legal notice was sent to the complainant vide letter No.91/VIP/RP/NDLS/13 dated 15.09.2014 annexed by the complainant along with the complaint.
- In their rejoinder, the complainant has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC passed in Union of India and ors. vs. Anjana Singh Chauhan (IV 2014 CPJ 198 NC) that expenses of remedy provided under section 13 & 15 of RCPA 1987 did not take away the jurisdiction of consumer courts to decide the question of deficiency in service. The complainant has also relied on the judgment of the NCDRC passed in GM, Northern Railway vs. Manoj Kumar (IV 2014 CPJ 559 NC) wherein it was held intimation of cancellation of trains, if not given, amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has also placed reliance on other judgments wherein damages and compensation were awarded against Railways.
19. The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit and both the parties have filed their written arguments. It is seen from the record of the case that the complaint has placed on record his ticket as well as the pay order of refund that was to be made to the complainant. It is also noticed that complainant filed a complaint on 03.06.2013 to the OP regarding the misbehaviour at the hands of Station Superintendent and refunding clerk since he was not refunded the amount of Rs.130/- of the pay order. The said complaint was also answered by deputy chief commercial manager claims on 21.06.2013 where in it was stated that enquiry was to be made against officers for fixing responsibility against the erring officials of the OP.
20. In the case of Northern Western Railway and Another v. Sanjay Shukla, 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The railways were required to provide the evidence and explain the reason behind the late arrival of the train. The reason why the passenger needs to be paid is because of the undisputed fact that every passenger's time is precious and having the option of booking a further longer, alternative journey, is no solution. Railway officials are liable to pay compensation for delays unless it can be proved that the delay was caused by actions beyond their control or any actions justifiable”.
21. Since, in the present case, the OP has not provided any reason for the cancellation of train and moreover the complainant was made to run from pillar to post for his own refund, this Commission is of the view that the OP is liable to pay a sum of Rs.130/- with interest @6 p.a till realisation within three months from the date of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay the said sum with 9% p.a till realisation. The OP is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of suffering that the complainant had to go undergo on a cold winter evening.
File be consigned to the record room. Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules.
