COMPLAINT FILED: 30.04.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 13th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1051/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT P. Parameswaran, I.R.S.,<br /> Asst. Commissioner,<br /> Central Excise and Customs,<br /> L-06, Central Excise and Customs Staff Quarters,<br /> 38th Main, II Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 068.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The General Manager,<br /> Railway Department,<br /> Surat Railway,<br /> Surat.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The General Manager,<br /> Divisional Office,<br /> Bangalore City Railway Station,<br /> Bangalore – 560 002.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (S.R. Khamroz Khan)<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Ryal Bharadwaj,<br /> Payment Assistant Unit,<br /> SBI Card & Payments <br /> Services (P) Ltd.,<br /> P.O. Bag No. 28, GPO,<br /> New Delhi – 110 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.7,631.21 and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant took railway ticket for himself and his wife through internet so as to travel in train No. 6613 Class 2 ACT from Ankleswar to Salem in view of his transfer. The said booking was confirmed and the cost of the said tickets Rs.7,631.21 is collected through the credit card of the complainant. Complainant was to undertake journey on 13.08.2006, but due to natural calamity many trains were cancelled. Thus complainant was prevented from enjoying the benefit of the said reserved ticket. When there was no proper response with regard to the issuance of the ticket either by sending it through courier or in person complainant made to purchase another set of tickets by spending huge amount. Thereafter he claimed for the refund of the amount collected through his credit card, but all his efforts went in vain. On repeated insistence OP returned only Rs.1,797/-. Under such circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.2 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of the version of OP.2 are that they are not aware of complainant booking the ticket through internet. Further it is contended that complainant has not availed the services of the OP.2 as contemplated. The destination where complainant intended to travel from Ankaleshwar to Salem do not come under the jurisdiction of OP.2. On the receipt of the representation from the complainant and the ticket OP promptly refunded Rs.1,797/-. So there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Complainant received the said amount without any protest. It is further contended that there is an inordinate delay in filing this complaint. The other allegations made in the complaint are devoid of merits. Complainant would have redressed his grievance before the Railway Claims Tribunal not before this Forum. Among these grounds, OP.2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Of course OP.1 and 3 have not participated in the proceedings actively.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP.2 has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is the case of the complainant that he booked the ticket from Ankleswar to Salem through internet so as to travel in train No. 6613 Class 2 ACT on 13.08.2006. According to complainant the cost of the said ticket was paid through his credit card to the tune of Rs.7,631/-, but thereafter due to various reasons especially due to natural calamity, flood, etc., some trains were cancelled, but still complainant was required to report new place of work he purchased another ticket directly and undertook the journey. Thereafter he demanded the OP to refund the earlier amount of Rs.7,631.21 collected through his credit card, but all his efforts went in vain. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP.2 that there is no proof of complainant having paid Rs.7,631/- for booking ticket through internet. The other document produced by the OP goes to show that complainant has produced the actual ticket in a letter form and then received the refund of Rs.1,797/- from IRCTC which is 50% of the fare on the ticket deposited to the said authority. The document to that effect is produced. So on going through the said document the actual fare for two adults from Ankleswar to Salem at AC 2 Tier is only Rs.3,594/- and not Rs.7,631.21 as contended by the complainant. So the approach of the complainant in that regard rather does not appears to be fair and honest.<br /> <br /> 8. Complainant received the said refund of 50% of the ticket without any protest or objection. Under such circumstances we find the complainant is estopped from again agitating the said relief before this Forum. We have gone through other correspondence and the documents produced by the litigating parties, we are of the view that complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. <br /> <br /> 9. Admittedly complainant is the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs would have redressed his grievance before the Railway Claims Tribunal if at all he has accrued any cause of action seeking for refund of the cost of the ticket due to natural calamity, etc. But no such steps are taken. Viewed from any angle, the allegations made in the complaint rather does not constitute the deficiency in service against the OP. Under such circumstances the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br />