BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 29th day of June,2006
C.C.No.4/2006
Sri G. Janardhana Reddy,Aged -67,
H.No. 49/50A-87G-4A, Lakshmi nagar, Kurnool-2.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Chief Commercial Manager, (Refunds), Refunds Section, South Central Railway,
IInd Floor, Rail nilayam, Secunderabad.
. . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on this day for orders of the case and upon the complainant represented by in person, and Sri M.D.V.J.Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party and stood over for consideration till this day the forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to refund the ticket fare with interest, Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the complaint, Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant reserved two tickets bearing Nos.14121631 and 14120949 for himself and his wife, to proceed to Dwaraka by Secundrabad-Rajkot Express Train, but the said train was canceled due to heavy rains. There after, the complainant approached railway authorities for refund of railway fare at Secundrabad, but the said authorities stated that as the tickets are purchase at Kurnool refund amount will be paid at Kurnool station only. After reaching Kurnool when approached the reservation office for refund of fare they stated that the claim for money should be claimed from Chief Commercial Manager, Secundrabad. On 14-7-2005, the complainant sent ticket deposit receipt for two tickets through courier and the same was received by opposite parties on 15-7-2005, but the complainant did not receive any amount. On 5-11-2005 the complainant sent a reminder letter there after a refund order dated 24-11-2005 for Rs.258/- only was received by the complainant. On 7-12-2005, the complainant returned the said refund order and requested to pay Rs.885/- the cost of the ticket i.e. (Rs.383/- + Rs.378/- = Rs.761/- and fare from Secundrabad to Kurnool i.e. Rs.62+Rs.62=Rs.124/-) there after on 19-12-2005 a fresh refund order for Rs.383/- only was sent by Chief Commercial Manager, Secundrabad. The complainant alleges deficiency of service on opposite parties for refunding partly amount of Rs.383/- only and not refunding the completed fare, hence resorted to the Forum for redressal.
3. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents viz. (1) Letter dated 5-11-2005 of complainant addressed to Chief Commercial Manager, Secundrabad (2) Certificate of posting (3) Letter dated 7-12-2005 of complainant to opposite party (4) Courier receipt for sending Ex.A3 (5) Refund order dated 19-12-2005 for Rs.383/- (6) Xerox copy of ticket deposit receipt for Rs.383/- and (7) Xerox copy of ticket deposit receipt for Rs.378/-, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A7 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party’s appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing written version.
5. The written version of opposite party alleges the complaint as not maintainable as per sub section 32 of section 2 of Railway Act 1989 Railway Administration. As per rule 14 of Railway Passengers (Cancellation of ticket and refund of fare) rules 1998, the complainant was sent two station pay orders (payable at Kurnool) bearing Nos. 093957 dated 19-12-2005 for Rs.383/- and 91394 dated 30-12-2005 for Rs.378/- towards refund of full fare paid by the Railway Administration under the above said tickets. It further says that had the complainant furnished details regarding ticket No. and train No. of journey from Secundrabad to Kurnool arrangements for refund of fare for the said travel could have been considered by the opposite party. As the complainant failed to furnish any details of said travel from Secundrabad to Kurnool the opposite party did not consider the said refund of fare.
6. Without prejudice to the foregoing submissions it further submits that section 15 read with section 13 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 bars the jurisdiction of courts or other authorities to adjudicate matter referred under section 13 of said Act. Hence, the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said matter of the complainant, hence, seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7. The opposite party in substantiation of its case filed its sworn affidavit and did not file any documents. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is what relief the complainant is entitled alleging the deficiency of service on opposite party:?
9. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased two tickets for himself and his wife to travel from Kurnool to Dwaraka in Rajkoti Express but the said train was canceled and the complainant sought for refund of full fare from opposite party the opposite party refunded Rs.258/- only which was returned by complainant and there after the opposite party refunded Rs.383/- only on 19-12-2005 instead of Rs.885/-. In this case the complaint is for deficiency of service and negligence on part of railway administration and claimed compensation for mental agony and financial loss for delay in refunding the two tickets full fare amount.
10. The opposite party have resisted the claim of the complainant mainly on the ground that section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with section 13 of the same enactment operates to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts and authorities including Consumer Fora and secondly regarding the refund of entire fare of reservation tickets i.e. 761/- the opposite party has sent refund order for the said amount long ago and the complainant did not encash the same and regarding the claim of Rs.124/- (Rs.62+Rs.62/-) the complainant did not furnish the ticket number and hence the opposite parties are helpless to refund the same.
11. At the outset, the question is whether the section 13 and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, excludes jurisdiction of Consumer Courts.
12. It is settled principle of law that exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. Although the Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not strictly speaking the Civil Courts, but this principle can equally applied and extended to the Consumer Courts. The question of exclusion of jurisdiction of Consumer Fora in the matter cannot be, therefore, so readily inferred unless such exclusion has been expressly or clearly implied.
13. At this stage it would be noticed that the complainant has sought compensation for mental torture and agony and loss on account of deliberate delay in refunding the ticket fare by opposite party. The jurisdiction of all courts or other authorities no doubt has been excluded under section 13 read with section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987. In this case the complaint is for sheer negligence and deficiency of service on part of opposite party and claimed compensation is not refunding the full fare amount of two tickets to the complainant and deliberately taking 5 months time for sending part amount i.e. Rs.383/- only, and as such reliefs are not covered by any of the provisions of section 13 and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 nor by the provisions of Railway Act 1989. The jurisdiction of Consumer Fora has not been excluded either expressly or impliedly by section 13 and 15 and as such we have no hesitation to hold that Consumer Fora has jurisdiction in this matter of the complainant.
14. The next submission of opposite party is that they have refunded the full fare of Rs.383/- and Rs.378/- to the complainant long ago. In this contest the facts which have come on record are that the complainant submitted with two ticket deposit receipts dated 5-7-2005 to opposite party for Rs.378/- and Rs.383/- vide Ex.A6 and A7 along with the application dated 14-7-2005 for refund of same. There after 3 ½ months lapsed another application dated 5-11-2005 vide Ex.A1 was sent to opposite party to this letter also there was no response and again a reminder letter dated 7-12-2005 vide Ex.A3 was addressed to opposite party and there on the opposite party sent a refund order dated 19-12-2005 for Rs.383/- only vide Ex.A5 instead of Rs.885/-, as there was no response from the opposite party for the remaining fare the complainant resorted to the Forum for redressal. On the other hand the opposite party in his written version vaguely submits that two pay orders are sent to the complainant but the complainant submits that only one pay order was received by him i.e. Ex.A5 and no supporting material is placed by the opposite party to substantiate there contentions. The version of the complainant appears to be more plausible more particularly when he applied for refund of fares on 5-7-2005 and at any rate the opposite party have fail to discharge their duties and to show they could not dispatch the refund order before to 19-12-2005 there are any valid and cogent reasons placed by the opposite party. It is no doubt true that when a person applied for refund of fare, should get the refund fare but if the authorities act arbitrarily such an action cannot be legally sustained. In fact the arbitrariness, negligence and deficiency is at large on the face of it and the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant under section 14 1 (d) and 14 1 (e) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in addition to refund of fare in arriving at such a conclusions the observations adopted are made by West Bengal State Commission in the case of Commercial Manager.E. Railways V/s Girdari Lal Saraf reported in IV 2004 CPJ page 777 and barrow with respect the reasons adopted by Shimla State Commission in the case between Chief Commercial Manager, Eastern Railways and another V/s Dr. K.K. Sarma and others reported in I 2000 CPJ page 59.
15. The opposite parties relied on the following decisions (1) Supreme Court between Chairman Tiruvallavar Transport Corporation V/s Consumer Protection Counsel reported in AIR 1995 page 1384, wherein, it was held that claim for compensation arising out of motor accident commission cannot adjudicate but matter as there is no relation of any service hired or availed by a consumer. (2) National Commission, between Southern Railways V/s M.Chidambaram reported in I 2002 CPJ page 34, wherein it was held that when no proper medical facilities are provided by railways which resulted in death of a passenger, Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the said claim in view of Section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 (3) Uttar Pradesh, State Commission between Union of India and another V/s Radha Kisan Khanna reported in II 2005 CPJ page 542, it was held that when dispute is regarding refund of freight, jurisdiction of Fora is clearly barred under section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 (4) Uttar Pradesh, State Commission between Bimla Saxena V/s Union of India reported in II 2006 CPJ page 279, it was held that when the claim is for compensation for death of young son against railways jurisdiction of Fora under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be barred by section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987.
16. The Supreme Court case (Supra) relied by the opposite party for compensation regarding the motor accident, therefore Fora has no jurisdiction, the National Commission case (Supra) and the Utter Pradesh Sate Commission case (2006 Supra) dealt with the death of a passenger, hence, it is clearly barred by section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, the other decision of Utter Pradesh State Commission (2005 supra) deals with freight dispute, the present case of the complainant is regarding compensation on account of delay in refunding fare, the said reliefs are not covered in any of the decisions by the opposite party, hence, the decisions cited by opposite party cannot be relied upon, on the other hand the decision reported by the complainant are on the similar facts of this particular case of the complainant.
17. The next question that requires consideration is as to how much compensation should be paid to the complainant in the facts and circumstances of the case. It can be imagine as to how much mental agony and considerable inconvenience the complainant have undergone being a senior citizen due to non-refund of fare by opposite party. The mental agony although cannot be measured exactly in terms of money but Consumer Fora can assess the compensation, therefore the complainant is entitled to some compensation for the deficiency in service on part of opposite party. Having regard to over all circumstances enumerated by and it is unfortunate that there is no material on record on the basis of which compensation could be worked out precisely. The ends of Justice would be met and it could be just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and of course the complainant would also get the refund of fare of Rs.761/- being the price of the ticket which the opposite party have already agreed to pay and along with costs and the complainant is also entitled for refund of Rs.124/- (Rs.62+Rs.62), fare from Secundrabad to Kurnool.
18. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the complaint and the complainant would also get refund of fare of Rs. 885/- as already offered by the opposite party. The above awarded amount shall be paid by the opposite party within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 29th day of June, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite party :Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Letter, dt 5.11.2005 addressed to opposite party.
Ex A.2 Under certificate of posting to opposite party.
Ex A.3 Letter, dt 7.12.2005 addressed to opposite party.
Ex A.4 Courier receipt.
Ex A.5 Refund payment, dt 19.12.2005 for Rs.383/- No. 093957.
Ex A.6 Xerox copy of Ticket Deposit receipt by opposite party for Rs.383/- (Res-
ervation Ticket No. 14/20949).
Ex A.7. Xerox copy of Ticket Deposit receipt by opposite party for Rs. 378/-.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite party: Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri G. Janardhana Reddy, Aged –67, H.No. 49/50A-87G-4A, Lakshminagar,
Kurnool-2.
- Sri M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
