Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties, for getting reliefs u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant is a business man by profession who booked a railway ticket to Mumbai from Thiruvalla Railway Station in TENCSTM.  He arrived in the railway station at 10AM for the schedule journey of 10.30AM of the said train.  It is contended that the enquiry officers informed him that the train would come only at 4.30PM on the said day, he again arrived the station at 3.45PM on the same day.  At that time the train left the railway station prior to 5mints of his arrival.  The complainant approached the railway counter authorities for the refund of the ticket amount but the officers did not refund the ticket amount as requested.  It is further contended that due to the missing of the journey he sustained a loss of            Rs. 75,000/- due to the cancellation of the goods which he ordered for the business.  It is further contended that he spent another Rs. 80,000/- for taxi charge and ticket charge at Mumbai for the said purpose.  Inconsequence of the missing of the train he was compelled to cancel the return ticket dated: 19/01/2017 from Mumbai to Thiruvalla.  Therefore the complainant filed this petition to get the refund of the ticket, compensation, cost, etc. etc.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  The opposite parties entertained appearance and filed a joint version as follows.  According to the opposite parties the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contended that the complainant is bad of lack to jurisdiction since the complainant has taken the journey ticket form Changanaserry Railway Station which is not under the jurisdiction of this Forum.  It is further contended that the General Manager of the Sothern Railway is a necessary party to the proceeding of this case but he is not in the party array.  This opposite parties disputed the allegation of the complainant with regard to his arrival on 10AM at Thiruvalla Railway Station and about the information with regard to the arrival of train.  According to the opposite parties the complainant arrived only at 4.40PM on the said day to cancel his ticket and his return journey ticket.  It is contended that when the complainant had arrived after the departure of the train his journey ticket from Thiruvalla to Mumbai could not to be cancelled as per the rules of the railway.  The reservation and cancelation of the train tickets are done with computerized reservation system and the said system is programmed as per the prevailing rules.  The train was scheduled to arrive at Thiruvalla at 10.30AM but the train was late on that date due to unavoidable reasons.  The delay which happened to the train was announced through public addressing system.  This opposite parties emphatically denied the allegation of the complainant that he arrived on 3.40PM at Thiruvalla Railway station for the journey.  The information given to the public through public addressing system was that the train would reach at 3Pm(15hours). Actually the train arrived at 3.40PM and left at 3.42PM.  It is also contended that as a result of the technical advantages, the train timings are available in website, call center No.139 and through online.  The complainant failed to relay any of the facilities stated above and only contacted numbers of station master and the superintendent of railway police.  It is further contended that except this complainant none of other passengers did not raise any complaint with regard to the delay or early departure which allegedly happened to this train on such date.  It is also contended that this case is bad for rule of estoppel.  Therefore it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. 
4. On the basis of the complaint, version and records before us we framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether this case is maintainable before this Forum?

 2. Whether the opposite parties are committed any deficiency

     in service against the complainant?

 3. Regarding relief and costs?

                   5. In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and marked Ext. A1 to A5 in his favour. Ext.A1 is the copy of the train ticket.  Ext. A2 series are the cancellation tickets from Mangalore Central to Changanasseri for an amount of Rs. 1710/-. Ext. A3 is the call details dated: 17/01/2017 & 18/01/2017.  Ext. A4 is the screen short of call logs.  Ext. A5 is the copy of order form of goods.  The complainant is examined as PW1. On the other side the authorized representative of 1^st opposite party he who filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as DW1.  Through DW1 marked Ext. B1 to B4 in their favour.  Ext. B1 is the certificate of identity and authorization letter dated: 25/05/2018.  Ext. B2 is the train time table dated: nil.  Ext. B3 is the statement dated: 17/01/2017 issued from the reservation supervisor.  Ext. B4 is the statement of Thiruvalla station manager dated:nil.  After the closure of evidence we heard both sides.  The opposite party also examined as DW1.   After the closure of the evidence we heard both sides.

                   6. Point No 1:- The main contention of the opposite parties are that the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact since this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and also contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  When we peruse the above said contention at the time of trial it is come out in evidence to see that the complainant he who arrived for the journey at Thiruvalla Railway Station and also proved that he paid an amount of Rs.2080/- for the journey and it is also to be noted that the reservation train ticket was issued for the journey form Thiruvalla Railway Station of Mumbai CST.  Though the opposite party raised a plea of estoppel at the time of evidence, the opposite party failed to adduce any evidence to show that this case was bad for the rule of estoppel.  On the basis of the above evidence we come to a conclusion that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite parties are service providers of the complainant.  Therefore Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.    

                   7. Point No 2 & 3:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.2 &3 together.  The complainant he who examined as PW1 deposed that due to the wrong information given by 2^nd opposite party he left Thiruvalla Railway Station and arrived there to catch the delayed train at 3.45PM on 17/01/2017.  It is also deposed that when he arrived at Thiruvalla Railway Station, 5 minutes prior to his arrival the train was left from the railway station.  Though he demanded the refund of the value of the reservation ticket he booked for the said journey the officials of opposite parties did not refund it as per his request.  In order to substantiate his contention he filed and marked Ext. A1 the reservation ticket from Thiruvalla to Mumbai CST for Rs. 2080/-.  Ext. A2 series are details with regard to the cancellation of the ticket from Mangalure Central to Changanasseri for an amount of Rs. 1710/-. The opposite party also admitted the cancellation of Ext. A2 series ticket produced by PW1.  Ext. A3 series shows that the complainant PW1 made so many calls to the station master of Thiruvalla Railway Station, Superintendent of railway police and also we can see that he made a call to No.139- enquiry-on 17/01/2017 at 3.6pm (15.06).  We can also understood that official concerned to phone no.139 took 135sec for the said conversation.  If so we can assume that the opposite party informed the arrival time of the train to PW1.  When PW1 was examined before this Forum the genuineness of the Ext. A3 had not challenged by the other side.  It is also to be noted that the complainant made so many calls to the railway authorities on that day i.e., 17/01/2017 from 3.6(15.6)PM to 6PM.  If the 2^nd opposite party or any other officers subordinate to him would have any seriousness, genuineness or responsibility they could have very well inform the actual delay of the train timing to PW1.  The specific case of the complainant PW1 is that he arrived in the railway station at 3.45pm on 17/01/2017 to catch the delayed train.  It is true that the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that PW1 miserably failed to adduce any evidence to see that he arrived at 3.45PM as contended.  When we refer Ext.A3 as stated above the earnest and sincere attempt of the complainant can be clearly inferred based on his telephone calls.  No prudent man can think that a person who booked a ticket for a long journey who purposefully delayed his arrival at the particular railway station as argued by the other side.  As a business man we can infer that his journey to the place of destination is highly necessary and inevitable as far as he is concerned.  Ext. A4 screen short of his mobile conversation an such date and time proves and corroborate PW1’s call to the enquiry no. 139 at 3.6PM through his mobile.  Ext. A5 is the order form Parakkavetty plaza of Changanasseri dated: 12/01/2017 to one Fathima Beevi proprietor.  The complainant relayed this Ext. A5 to prove that the journey was intended to purchase some articles from Mumbai.  We don’t think that if any change of time happened to the complainant for his arrival at Mumbai cause any heavy loss to him as contended.  Moreover the reliability of Ext. A5 is also doubtful when we verify the contents.

                 8. On the other side for 1^st opposite party the complaint inspector of 1^st opposite party one Biji N.P is examined as DW1. According to DW1 the refund of the ticket can be allowed only prior to the departure of the train.  Here it is admitted that the train was left from station when PW1 arrived in the railway Station.  In order to substantiate the contention of opposite parties the refund rules produced and marked as Ext. B2.  In Ext. B2 shows ““No refund shall be granted on the reserved ticket if it is surrendered for cancellation less than 4 hours of the scheduled departure of the train””.  Ext. B3 is a letter issued by the official concerned to Thiruvalla railway station who stated that since the complainant approached his counter after departure of the train he did not give any refund to him as per the refund rules.  Ext. B4 is a statement recorded and produced by 2^nd opposite party the Station Manager, Thiruvalla with regard to the incident as statement of fact.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by DW1 we do understood that the railway authorities has no right to refund the value of the ticket to the person who carriers the ticket after the departure of the particular train.  The question to be considered is whether the complainant have got any knowledge of the departure of the train at 4.30PM as alleged by the complainant.  When we refer Ext. A3 it is so clear to see that the complainant made a call to railway enquiry – 139 and took 135sec of duration for the telephone conversation.  If so we can infer that the complainant could have received an information to the effect that the train would have come only at 4.30PM as contended by the complainant.

                   9. As discussed above it is clear that the railway officers who is incharge of the enquiry counter committed deficiency in service by giving a wrong information with regard to  the arrival of the train as alleged by the complainant.  We also find that though the complainant prayed to allow a huge compensation to him.  The prayer of the complainant with regard to this aspect can be allowable.  The Indian railway being a public undertaking the public expect more and responsible service from their side.  Therefore we would like to allow the complaint partly as a message to the opposite parties.  Point No.2&3 found accordingly.                           

                       10.  In the result we pass the following order.

1. The opposite parties are hereby directed to refund the Ext. A1 ticket amount Rs. 2,080/- (Rupees Two Thousand Eighty only)to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order and a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order.  If fails the opposite parties are liable to pay 10% interest to the said amount from the date of order onwards.
2. No order for compensation.          

 Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of October, 2018.

                                                                  (Sd/-)                                    

P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)           :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Muhammadu Rafi

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Copy of the train ticket 

A2 series :  the cancellation of a ticket from Mangalure Central to Changanasseri

                  for an amount of Rs. 1710/-.

A3 : Call details dated: 17/01/2017 & 18/01/2017.

A4 : Screen short of call logs.

A5 : Copy of order form of goods. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 : Byju N.P

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 : Certificate of identity and authorization letter dated: 25/05/2018. 

B2 : Train time table dated: nil. 

B3 : Statement dated: 17/01/2017 issued from the reservation supervisor.

B4 : Statement of Thiruvalla station manager dated: nil.                                       (By         

                                                                                                 (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Muhammad Rafi,

                    Puthupparambil, Puzhavat, Changanassery,

                    Kottayam – 686101.

(2) The Divisional Railway Manager,

     Claim & Refund, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. The Station Master,

     Railway Station, Thiruvalla.

4. The Stock File.