DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………………..
Presents:-
1.Sri P.Samantara, President.
2. Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated Bolangir the 19th day of February 2016.
C.C.No.48 of 2014.
Ghasairam Suar, age-63 years, son of late Harishankar Suar, Resident of Santipara,
Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
The Station Manager, E-Cost Railway, Bolangir.
At/P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Party.
Adv.for the complainant- Sri R.Rath & Associates.
Adv.for the Opp.Party - Sri O.P.Hota.
Date of filing of the case- 25.06.2014
Date of order - 19.02.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
1. Succinctly put, the complainant booked ticket O-16495401 under PNR No-471-5473748 in proposed journey from YESVANTPUR to BALANGIR on dt.12.04.2014, all berths were wait listed in train No.-12836. On the chart prepared date i.e 10.06.2014 only one ticket was confirmed relating to PNR No.-4461783442.
2. The complainant also stated as during night the reservation counter was closed and further it was highly necessary to reach Balangir on dt.12.06.2014. The complainant could not cancel the ticket at YPR railway station and come back to Balangir by other means departing Bangalore at night on 10.06.2014 and reached Balangir on dated 12.06.2014. Consequent upon reaching approached the Chief Book Supervisor for refused of the ticket or issue TDR, so that the application to made to the proper authority but was refund to issue any TDR, on the ground that same should have been cancelled at Yeshwantpur station and not at Balangir.
Further averred since the refund claim is to be made within 90 days from the date of journey i.e 11.06.2014 and TDR must be issued within 30 days so refusal of the O.P to issue TDR amounts to deficiency of service and nowhere in refund rule it reveals that waitlisted ticket must be cancelled at the originating station and at no other station.
3. No valid reason has been assigned by the O.P for not issuing of TDR. Because of non issuance of TDR by the O.P, the complainant could not apply to the CCM, Bhubaneswar for refund of the amount and filed the case for appropriate reliefs. Relied on ticket, photo copy, Revised refund rules, affidavit and latter written note of argument.
4. Pursuant to notice O.P appeared and filed the version contending the complaint as filed is not maintainable and lies the realm of Railway Claims Tribunal 1987 under section 13(1)(b) r/w Sectg.15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987. The facts as stated in para-3 and 4 are false and fabricated, hence refund is not admissible on wait listed ticket through ticket Deposit Receipt.
5. Further stating the departure time of the train No-12836, from YPR is at morning 8.30 A.M and all the PRS counters over India Railways are opened at 08.00 A.M. They did not cancelled the ticket at PRS counter within the prescribed time limit, which proves that the complainant was himself negligent in his duties and trying to shift the liability on the railways.
6. That in view of the above, the present petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P and the petition be dismissed with cost. Relied on exhaustive IRCA coaching tariff, Gazette Notification on refund rules, catena of judgments in photo copies and written note of argument.
7. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record.
8. The sole grouse of the petitioner is that the O.P did not issued the TDR against wait listed ticket so the petitioner failed to get the refund. Thus liable to deficiency.
9. The sole contention raised by the O.P is that the complaint is not maintainable and the refund on wait listed ticket is not allowed as per the refund rules w.e.f. 01.07.2013.
10. On outset we come across, no dispute prevails over waitlisted ticket booking or status. Further on maintainability, we find the section 13 of railway Claims Tribunal Act is applicable only for claim on luggage and not applicable to passengers of the train and same view is fortified under the decision Vinaya Vilas Sawant Vs Union of India- it is held- the loss or injury is caused to human beings and not to the animals and that it was not acting as carrier of goods. Hence section 13 is not applicable. Once Section 13 is not applicable, Section 15 does not come into play and in addition to further fortification we can rely decision – Sayed Ahmed Vs Union of India, Southern Railway-Held-The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of other law for the time being in force. Thus it is open to the person aggrieved to file a complaint either before consumer forum or Railways claims Tribunal Act.
(iii) State of Karnataka Vs Viswabharati House Building Co- operative Society-(Appeal)9927 of 1996. Held- the remedies provided under there are not in derogation of those provided under other laws. It has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in spite of the fact that other forums/courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis. So the above decision amply give way to the case to be maintainable, so this court did not derive jurisdiction apart from the statute rather above settled principle well permits to drive within statute.
11. The second issue on refund rules, the petitioner and the railway relied on revised refund rules in force w.e.f. 01.07.2013. Clause-3.3 Unused waitlisted or RAC tickets. Revised Rules- If a wait listed /RAC ticket is presented for cancellation, refund of fare shall be admissible after deducting the clerk age.
(i), (ii), x x x x x x
(iii) No refund of fare shall be granted on RAC ticket/wait listed ticket after, three hours of the actual departure of the train.
(iv) x x x x x
3.9- Application for refund of Passenger Reservation System (PRS) tickets in other circumstances:-
For refund of fare under circumstances other than those specified in these rules or under circumstances like bandh or agitations or floods etc, the passengers could not reach the reservation counter or station or current counters for cancellation of tickets, in those cases, a TDR shall be issued to the passenger and the passenger may apply for refund of fare within ten days………………..departure of the train.
12. The above noted rules clearly speaks the issuance of TDR and nowhere, it is denied the TDR will not be issued. So perusal of rules at both end says, non-issuance of TDR is a negligence on the part of the railway authority, thus the subsequent clause- “ RAC and wait listed ticket are not eligible to be returned does not come into play”.
13. Further carrying with the same rules, the O.P vehemently contended, the refund on wait listed ticket is not allowed after the three house of the actual departure of the train and the petitioner failed to encash the wait listed ticket before the counter although it is open. But it is an usual feature, the station counters over crowded rush and the awaiting to board the train simultaneously we can say a herculean task, hence opting for TDR is no more a sin under settled refund rules and no clarification is tendered in either way in non-issuance of TDR. So we find, the manner of performance in obedient to refund Rule 3.9 (non obstante) Application for refund of passengers Reservation System (PRS) tickets in other circumstances, explanation is not more abided with, which is a shortcoming thereby a fault within the meaning of the deficiency as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act.
14. Although the learned advocate of O.P vehemently contended with the standing rules, violation but neither the version of O.P nor argument made any way of penetration in explaining the refund Rule 3.9, which is beneficial for a lay consumer, which is suppressed and entirely willfully and the relevancy has not been discussed. We considerably come to know, the circumstance did not allow the petitioner to reach booking counter to approach for refund thereby, subsequent right to avail the TDR provision is also denied for which we can say, the grouse of the petitioner is clearly vindicated in view of the foregoing discussion.
ORDER.
The O.P is liable to refund the fare on the unused ticket in the question after deducting the clerkage and also pay a sum of Rs 1,500/- as compensation for the loss, harassment & mental agony sustained inclusive of legal expenses incurred within 30 days of this order, failing which interest @ 12% per annum will accrue on the entire sum from the date of application till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER PRESIDENT.
