Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/879/2016

Shiv Murti Yadav Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Ministry of Railways - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/879/2016
Date of Institution	:	29/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	07/03/2018

 

Shiv Murti Yadav, Advocate S/o Sh. Raam Dulare Yadav, Chamber No.31, Lawyers Chamber, District Courts Complex, Sector 43, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

(1)     The Ministry of Railways, through its General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

 

(2)     Divisional Railway Manager, Lucknow Rail Niwasa 12-B.D. Marg Bandaria Bagh, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

 

(3)     Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Rail Vihar Colony Near Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

 

(4)     Head of Railway Reservation Window, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 

(5)     Station Master, Amethi Railway Station, District Amethi, Uttar Pradesh.

 

(6)     Superintendent of Amethi Railway Station, District Amethi, Uttar Pradesh.

 

(7)     Station Master Railway Station Bahadurpur (Jais), District Amethi, Uttar Pradesh.

 

(8)     Station Master, Railway Station Gauriganj, District Amethi, Uttar Pradesh.

 

(9)     Head of Railway Reservation Window at (Old ISBT), Sector 17, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	SMT.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
		Sh. Sunil K. Sahore, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the Complainant, who is a practicing Advocate and belonged to Village Semra Post Saruvavan Tehsil and District Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, had booked two tickets from the Railway Reservation Window, Sector 17, Chandigarh on 29.02.2016 one from Chandigarh to Sultanpur bearing PNR No. 211-5626717 Train No.13256 for dated 18.04.2016 for going to his native Village and second one bearing PNR No. 286-1076351, Train No.12231 for dated 24.4.2016 to return from his native village (Tickets Annexure C-1 and C-2). The Complainant undertook the outward journey on 18.04.2016, but due to unavoidable circumstances decided to postpone the inward journey on 24.4.2016 and went to the Railway Station Bahadurpur to return his ticket where he was advised to approach the Gauriganj Railway Station for refunding the reservation ticket. As per the advice, the Complainant approached the Gauriganj Railway Station, where he was directed to approach the Railway Station Amethi. By the time, the Complainant reached the Amethi Railway Station, the reservation window was closed and he was advised to approach General Ticket Window. At the General Ticket Window, the concerned Official told that there was no facility of cancellation and advised the Complainant to approach the Station Superintendent of Railway Station, Amethi, who when contacted advised the Complainant to go Lucknow Railway Station for cancellation and refund of the reservation ticket. Totally harassed and humiliated by the working of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant demanded the Complaint book from the Station Master, Railway Station Amethi, which he did not provide. The Complainant even wrote a Complaint regarding non-compliance of the Railway Rules for canceling and refunding the amount of reservation ticket (Annexure C-3), but the Station Master flatly refused to receive the same. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties No. 2 & 5 to 8 in their joint reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case have pleaded that the Complainant approached the railway ticket counter at Railway Station Jais (Bahadurpur) on after 2.00 P.M. and being Sunday the ticket counter was closed as it was open only till 2.00 P.M. It has been urged that as per the Circular dated 15.05.2014 issued by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India, only Zonal Railways are empowered to open the PRS Counters beyond 2000 hrs. on weekdays and beyond 1400 hrs. on Sundays subject to the demand from the passengers and availability of manpower. It has been asserted that when the Complainant approached the Station Master Amethi at about 4.00 P.M., the Station Master was held up in the Train Traffic which was the priority of Railways for safety of passengers. The Station Master was free within few minutes and asked about the grievance of the Complainant on which he was apprised that the ticket could not be cancelled at Amethi Railway Station being Sunday on 24.04.2016. At this, the Complainant asked for the Complaint book, which was duly given to him and he lodged the Complaint in the same. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.         Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties has made a statement on 16.01.2017 to the effect that Opposite Parties No.1, 3, 4 & 9 adopt the reply filed by Opposite Parties No.2 & 5 to 8.
5.         The complainant has filed rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
6.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties, and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties.
8.         The core question to be decided in the present lis is as to whether Complaint regarding refund is maintainable before Consumer Forum?
9.         Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posted has to be in the negative.
10.         In IV (2010) CPJ 154 (NC) – Northern Railway & Ors. Versus Dau Dayal Chaturvedi; Revision Petition No. 3832 of 2010 – Kacharu Lal Agrawal Versus The General Manager, South East Central Railway; Revision Petition No. 1874 of 2012 – Union of India & Others Versus Yash Industries & Another; First Appeal No. 411 of 1996 – Union of India and Others Versus Sri Ramji Enterprises & Another, it was held that such Complaints are not maintainable before Consumer Fora in the light of bar created by Section 13 of Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. The relevant Section 13 and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, are extracted below:-

“13.  Jurisdiction, power and authority of claims Tribunal – (1)        The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority, as were exercisable immediately before that day by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of Railway Act: -

[a]    relating to the responsibility of the Railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for-

1. Compensation for loss, destruction, damages, deterioration or non- delivery of animals or good entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway;
2. Compensation payable under Sec.82-A of the Railways Act or the Rules made thereunder; and

[b]    In respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.”

15.   Bar of Jurisdiction. – On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, power or authority in relation to the matters referred to in [sub-sections (10 and 1-A] of Sec.13.”

                In view of foregoings, it cannot be presumed that Complaint filed by Complainant for refund of excess amount was maintainable before Consumer Fora.

11.         In such a situation, it is the Railway Claims Tribunal which is competent to decide the controversy inter se parties. The Complainant has chosen a wrong Forum for the redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the present Complaint is not maintainable and the same is ordered to be dismissed with liberty to the Complainant to approach Railway Claims Tribunal for his grievance. Parties to bear their costs.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.