For the Complainant:- Self.
For the O.P No. 1 & 2 :-Sri Satan Seth, Advocate, Bhawanipatna
For the O.P No.3:- None.
ORDER.
The present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against the afore said O.Ps for non refund of Railway ticket amount after cancellation of train. The brief facts of the case are summarized here under.
1. That on Dt. 5th, June, 2015 the complainant had booked railway ticket through IRCTCs e –ticketing service and booked Railway ticket from Kesinga (KSNG) up to Bhopal Jn. (BPL). The date of journey was i.e. Dt. 01.07.2015 for 2 persons. But on Dt. 1.7.2015 the train No.12807 ( Samata Express) was cancelled. The Kesinga Railway station had announced over mike that the train No.12807 ( Samata Express) was cancelled to day i.e Dt. 1.7.2015 and the train fare will be refunded to the passengers as per rule and will be credited in the respective S.B. account of the passenger. But till date the complainant neither received the train fare a sum of Rs.2,060.60 from the O.Ps. nor received any response. Hence this case filed before the forum for redressal of grievance and the hon’ble forum be direct the O.P. to refund deposited amount a sum of Rs. 2,060.60 towards train fare with interest @ Rs. 18.% from the date of respective deposit till payment. Further Direct the O.Ps to pay to and fro transportation charges through bolero from Bhawanipatna to Kesinga and Kesinga to Bhawanipatna a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. and direct the O.Ps to pay compensation and cost of litigation for mental agony and damages and grant such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper under circumstances of the case for the best interest of justice
2. On being noticed the O.P. No.1 & 2 filed written version through their learned counsel and submitted that the case is not maintainable before the forum and lies with in the Railway Claims Tribunal , 1987 under Section 13(1) (b) r/w section – 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The sub-clause (b) of Section 13(1) of the Act clearly says that all claims regarding refund of fare or part thereof are only maintainable before the Railway Claims Tribuanal and not before the consumer forum. Hence the trial of such case by the consumer forum or any other authority or court is barred under section-15 of the R.C.T Act, 1987 which is an overriding effect under section -28 of the said Act. The O.P No. 1 & 2 cited a lot of citations in their written version to defend the case. The O.P. 1 & 2 submitted that there was some delay in refund process which is considerable and not amounted to deficiency in service.
The forum sent notice to the O.P.No.3 by Regd. Post which was received by the O.P. No.3 as revealed from the postal receipt. But the O.P. No.3 neither appeared before the forum nor choose to file written version. Hence the O.P. No.3 made set exparte on dt.20.1.2016 and fixed date for hearing on dt. 4.3.2016.
The O.Ps 1 & 2 had appeared and filed their written version. Arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps 1 & 2 and from the complainant heard. Perused the record, documents, written argument, citations filed by the parties.
The parties are vehemently advanced their arguments touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.
FINDINGS.
3. On perusal of the written version filed by the O.P. 1 & 2 it is revealed that the refund was also processed manually and refund of Rs. 2,015/- ( full refund of ticket fare) was approved on 27.8.2015 and transferred in user’s account on 28.8.2015. Hence there was no much delay to raise the deficiency in service.
It is held and reported in C.P.R. 2013 (4) page No. 202 where in the hon’ble National Commission observed “ It appears very strange that the rules of IRCTC for refund of e-ticket appear to be unilaterally framed for the benefit of O.P. It is impossible to fathom that in case if passengers cancels his journey why he should go to railway station and search the ticket checking staff and get the certificate. Such e-ticket refund procedure is not just proper which is practically impossible and not helpful to the consumers at large. It is just illusionary and humiliation of consumers. Instead of seeking refund most of the passengers will prefer to forgo the money rather to approach TTE and get a certificate. The IRCTC website should be fool proof; and needs drastic improvement. Most of the consumers/passengers suffer from the IRCTC web site; that booking or cancellation of ticket will be paramount exercise. Most of the time the website OP is inaccessible for hours together. Therefore, we feel necessary to issue certain direction as the O.P. should take necessary steps to improve their IRCTC website which should be user/consumer friendly, fast and perfect in all respects. It is the need of hour for consumers at large in our country which is the ultimate Goal of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Coming to the merit of the case that on Dt. 5th, June, 2015 the complainant had booked railway ticket through IRCTCs e –ticketing service and booked Railway ticket from Kesinga (KSNG) up to Bhopal Jn. (BPL). The date of journey was i.e. Dt. 01.07.2015 for 2 persons. But when the complainant arrived at Kesinga Railway Station by taxi from Bhawanipatna with his co-passenger to board the train he was shocked to hear the announcement that on Dt. 1.7.2015 the train No.12807 ( Samata Express) was cancelled. The Kesinga Railway station had announced over mike that the train No.12807 ( Samata Express) was cancelled to day i.e Dt. 1.7.2015 and the train fare will be refunded to the passengers as per rule and will be credited in the respective S.B. account of the passenger. But till 21.8.2015 the complainant neither received the train fare a sum of Rs.2,060.60 from the O.Ps. nor received any response.
We observed after filing of the case before the forum the O.Ps refunded the ticket amount to the complainant which is admitted by the complainant. We find there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.3 for non refund of ticket amount to the complainant’s S.B. account. Further the cancellation the above train was never announce at any earlier stage except on the date and time of arrival of train at Kesinga station. Further when the complainant had booked the ticket through IRCTC by internet the O.P. atleast should have intimated the cancellation of train in the registered mobile No. of the complainant which would have prevented the complainant from taking the pain to go to Kesinga by booking a Taxi. This callousness on the part of the O.P. No.3 is amounts to deficiency of service on the parts of the O.Ps to which the complainant suffer mentally and financially.
In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and in the facts, circumstances of the case & on perusal of the record, the complaint petition, documents, Written argument and in the light of the settled legal position stated by us above and referring the above Citations there exists a strong “prima facie” case in favor of the complainant. Further we find there is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.3 On the strength of the aforesaid rulings this forum allow this case in part.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
ORDER.
4. In the result with these observations, findings, discussion the complaint petition is allowed in part on exparte against the O.P No. 3 and dismissed against O.P. No.1 & 2 on contest.
The O.P. No. 3 is ordered to pay Rs. 1,500/- towards. compensation. for mental agony including transporting charges by Bolero from Bhawanipatna to Kesinga and Kesinga to Bhawanipatna on Dt. 1.7.2015 borne by the complainant. No cost.
The O.P No.3 is ordered to comply the above direction within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take further proceedings U/S- 25 & 27 of the C.P. Act. Service the copies of the order to the parties.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 31st. day of March, 2015.
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
Documents relief upon:-
By the complainant.
- Xerox copies of the E-ticket.
By the O.Ps .
Nil.
PRESIDENT.
31.3.2016.
Order pronounced in the open forum in presence of the parties and enclosed order in the file separately.
The complaint petition is allowed in part on exparte against the O.P No. 3 and dismissed against O.P. No.1 & 2 on contest.
The O.P. No. 3 is ordered to pay Rs. 1,500/- towards. Compensation for mental agony including transporting charges by Bolero from Bhawanipatna to Kesinga and Kesinga to Bhawanipatna on Dt. 1.7.2015 borne by the complainant. No cost.
The O.P No.3 is ordered to comply the above direction within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take further proceedings U/S- 25 & 27 of the C.P. Act. Service the copies of the order to the parties.
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
