Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/196/2012

V. SELVAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY - Opp.Party(s)

V. SELVAM

13 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

                                        BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                     TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                MEMBER

                                                                                                F.A.NO. 196/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.64/2010, dated 17.08.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Cuddalore)

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF APRIL 2015

V.Selvam,

S/o.Visvanathan,

Chithirai Chavady,

Kanisapakkam Post,                                                Appellant / Complainant

Panruti Taluk 607 106

Cuddalore District.

                              Vs

The General Manager,

Southern Railway,                                                   Respondent/Opposite party

Parktown, Chennai 600 003.

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 09.03.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:

Appellant/ Complainant                 :        Party in person         

Counsel for Respondent/ Opposite party :  M/s.K.Kumaran

                                     

ORDER

J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Cuddalore in CC.No.64/2010, dated 17.08.2011 dismissing the complaint with costs.

2.       The case of the complainant is that he booked a ticket for traveling from Chennai Central to Dadar on 14.02.2010.  The petitioner had specifically mentioned in the requisition form as Chennai Central to Dadar.  But, however the ticket issued by the opposite party was for Chennai to Mumbai CST.  The cost of the ticket from Chennai to Dadar is only Rs.379/-, whereas the ticket for Chennai Central to Mumbai CST is Rs.383/-.  So the complainant cancelled the ticket and the cancellation charge of Rs.20/- was deducted and Rs.363/- only was refunded by the opposite party.  This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

3.       The opposite party has generally denied the allegation in the complaint and in the version has stated that the relevant particulars have not been furnished by the complainant in the complaint or in the notice issued to them and without knowing the material facts they could not send a proper reply.  There is no deficiency of service on their part.

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the complainant to the opposite party for filing a frivolous and vexatious complaint as contemplated u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.       It is quiet pertinent to note that, the complainant / appellant has not filed his proof affidavit before the District Forum.  We have to further note that the essential particulars such as PNR Number, place of booking and other material particulars of the booked ticket and the cancellation particulars are not furnished in the complaint and also in the notice Ex.C1 sent by him to the opposite party and for want of material particulars the opposite party could not send any reply.  The opposite party has filed Ex.B1 said to be the status report.

7.       The complainant has not evinced any interest in prosecuting the case.

8.       For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the complainant / appellant has not established his case of deficiency in service against the opposite party.

9.       The District Forum has dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/-  considering the frivolous and vexatious nature of the complaint.

10.     Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the complainant is very much on the higher side and so we are inclined to reduce the costs to Rs.5000/-.  Otherwise there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

11.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the costs payable by the complainant / appellant to the Respondent / opposite party to Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) instead of Rs.10,000/- and confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                           J.JAYARAM

      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES / NO

VL/D;/PJM/ RAILWAY