Gujarat

Surat Addl

CC/15/829

SURAJ RATANJI PARIVAB - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER,STATION SUPERITENDET WESTEN RAILWAY - Opp.Party(s)

A.B.PANDYA

23 Jun 2017

ORDER

Case Registered on:-01-12-2015

Case decided on:-27-06-2017

BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM (ADDL) AT SURAT

C.D.R.F Complaint No. 829/2015

1) Suraj Ratanji Periwal

Age: 45, Cast: Hindu,

Occupation: Business,

Res: C-504, Sanidya Residency,

Nr. Ganga Hotel, Parvat Patia Road,

Magob, Surat.                                …………..Complainant.

Versus

1. The Manager

Station Superintendent

[Western Railway]

Surat Railway Station

1.  

2. Union Of India

Through The General Manager,

Western Railway

Headquarter Building, Church Gate,

Opp. Station Building,

Mumbai,

3. Union Of India

Secretary, the Railway Minister,

Rail Bhavan, Rajpath

New Delhi.

4. Union Of India

The Grievance Cell Officer

Western Railway passenger Complaints

Charchgate railway station

Mumbai.

                     President:- Mr. K.J Upadhyaya

                     Member:- Mrs. Purvi V. Joshi

Ld. Advocate for the Complainants:-Mr. A. B. Pandya

Ld. Advocate for the Opponents:- Mr. B. A. Dalal

(ORDERED BY : Mr. K.J Upadhyaya)

78503207062.  

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under sec. 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Facts giving rise to the present complaint in brief are as under:-
2. The complainant purchased his railway ticket for his journey with his sister kusum rathi & her 3 years old child from an authorized agent of western railway surat station on 08/05/2015 at 6:04 pm & the ticket detail is PNR No: 8135572530, Gandhidham puri weekly express, from surat to samhiyala BG khurda road junction (odisha) on 13/06/2015.

As per the booking status of said ticket, the applicant was allotted a confirm ticket & was told by the authorized agent that exact coach number and birth number will be allotted before the final chart will be prepared.

3. complainant's boarding was from Surat. The complainant checked his PNR status several times online between booking date to journey date and the ticket status was confirm all the time except one day before the journey on 13^th may 2015 at 10 pm. Finally the chart was prepared and the final status was W/L 26 and W/L 27. This was first time in his life when confirm ticket was degraded and converted to waiting list due to technical problem and faulty railway ticket system. Confirm ticket was cancelled. It is unfair trade practice of the western railway authorities and agents subordinate officers amount to be a deficiency in service and negligency in duty to the consumer.
4. The complainant immediately rushed to station master and other concerned authorities and request them to resolve this issue. But they didn't cooperate and instead of real time cooperation, they insulted the applicant before general public. Therefore it was not possible for the complainant to continue his journey with his sister and her 3 years old child along with huge luggage. So he gave a written complaint against faulty railway system and finally forced to cancel his journey at midnight 2 am, just 4 hours before the train departure. Complainant also tried to travel on date of journey and requested all concerned TTE to cooperate and accommodate them due to system fault, but they were also helpless in this particular case. Complainant was at no fault yet having a confirm ticket, complainant was not able to travel with confirm ticket that create cause of action against the railway authorities for recovery of damages and compensation of Rs.5 lacks plus amount for mental agony and harassment to the consumer it is a violation of human rights also.
5. It is claimed by the complainant that due to negligence by the opponent, he could not travel by the train, so he purchased Air ticket for cost of Rs. 9,005/- to reach his desire destination. It is also claimed that he has also incurred business loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also claimed that he has undergone mental and physical harassment for which he has claimed Rs.2,00,000/- thus in all complainant has claimed Rs.5,34,005/- with interest.
6. Notice was duly served to the opponents, opponent no 1 appeared through his advocate and have filed reply, in the said reply wherein it is claimed that the ticket purchased by the complainant was never confirm till last stage, it was on waiting list from date, he has purchased the same.
7. It is also claimed as per railway procedure bogie seat gets updated on internet system and when final chart is prepared the status of ticket is mentioned. It is claimed that coach Mo BE-1 was not attached on the date of travel for the safety and security of the passenger of the said coach was sick.
8. It is claimed that compensation claimed by the complainant is without any base or documentary evidence so, same requires to be rejected. It is denied that due to faulty railway ticket system the complainant could not commence his travel and forced to stop his journey.
9. Thus as per case of the opponent no 1 the complainant requires to be rejected even though rest of the opponents served but not filed reply however reply of opponent no 1 can be taken as reply of all the opponents.
10. The complainant has submitted written argument, wherein it is claimed that complainant has proved that due to cancellation of ticket he could not travel to his destination, his ticket has shown confirm yet he has not allowed to travel, thus the complainant should be suitably awarded.
11. As against this learned advocate for the opponent no 1 has argued that as per railway circular on reservation ticket etc. shows that, The Railway administration will endeavor to provide reserved accommodation but does not guarantee the same and will admit no claim for compensation for inconvenience, loss or extra expenses due to such accommodation including carriages, not being provided or reserved coach not been attached to a particular train. The supply of any particular type of coach or provision of particular berth and seat is also not guaranteed. So it is argued that on the basis of above circular railway authorities were handicapped by not giving confirm reservation since one bogie declared sick, it is also argued that the complainant has produced air ticket to show that he has paid particular amount for the same, compensation of business loss of Rs.3,00,000/- is also without any base.
12. The learned advocate has relied on one authority:

1. Org. OPs.   Vs.   Suresh Kashinath Behere B. Nandadeep

Wherein it was held that when due to mechanical defects the said bogie was not available the railway authority cannot made liable to pay compensation for loss cause to the passenger.

13. It is also claimed that when refund was given to the complainant, now he cannot make a grievance that he has incurred loss on extra travel expenses.
14. We are of the view that opponent no 1 being public utility concern has to see that it is beneficiaries namely complainant in this case are provided suitable accommodation, however in certain occasion things are beyond control of public utility concern like railway due to mechanical defect in bogie, a ticket of the complainant which was all in waiting list could not be confirm even as per documents relied by the complainant on day when he has to travel his ticket was shown in waiting list.
15. So when ticket was not confirm the complainant as a passenger cannot claim that he must be accommodate in the coach, the circular as well as authorities cited by the complainant is very much relevant, the complaint ought to show that there is a deficiency in service by the railway authorities. However the same is not proved neither complainant has proved that he has spent extra on air travel, due to cancellation of ticket refund was given to him.
16. Thus considering facts as well as law we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service as claimed by the complainant, so no compensation as claimed by the complainant can be awarded, hence following order is passed:-
17.  

1) This complaint is hereby rejected.

2) Parties be informed by supplying free copies of the order.

Signed and Pronounce today on:- 23-06-2017.

     

•       K J Upadhyaya)             (Purvi V. Joshi)
•  

District Consumer Disputes RedressalForum (Addl).

1.