1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he had purchased Railway Ticket bearing No.PNR-48552465277, Train No.15629 Guwahati Express on 05.06.2017 for Rs.2875/- from OP.1 to perform journey on 02.10.2017 from Chennai Egmore Railway Station to Balasore in Odisha and the complainant along with his family members were ready at the station before the schedule time of 10.30 AM on 02.10.2017 to catch the train but at about 10.00 AM the station authorities announced that the said train is canceled without any reason. It is submitted that the complainant approached the station authorities at Egmore to return the ticket fare but they advised to claim refund of fare from OP.1 from which the ticket was purchased. The complainant approached OP.1 on 06.10.2017 but was advised by OP.1 to approach OP.2 for necessary refund since their computer was not showing cancellation of said train on 02.10.2017. It is further submitted that the complainant on 10.10.2017 through RPAD requested the OP.2 with necessary papers for refund of fare but the OP.2 on 31.10.2017 intimated the complainant through a letter that “refund not claimed within 10 days from the date of journey and hence refund cannot be entertained.” Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund Rs.2875/- towards fare with interest @ 18% p.a. from 05.06.2017 and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 though entered his appearance through his A/R, did not prefer to file counter. However, the Op.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about purchase of Railway ticket bearing No.PNR-48552465277 with date of journey 02.10.2017 by the complainant. The OP.2 relying Sec.13 & 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, contended that this case is not maintainable in any court of law except Railway Claims Tribunal and hence this case is to be dismissed. It is further contended that the ticket was to be surrendered within 3 days of schedule departure but where the passenger could not reach the reservation counter for cancellation of tickets, he may apply refund of fare within 10 days from the date of commencement of journey to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refund) but the claim application of the complainant reached to them on 17.10.2017 for which they repudiated the claim on 31.10.2017. Thus denying any fault on its part the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases. The OP.2 filed affidavit. Heard from the complainant as well as A/R for the OP.2 and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case, the OP.2 has raised preliminary objection stating that Sec.15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act provides for exclusion of jurisdiction of all courts and authorities. Sec.15, on and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-Sec-(1) and(1A) of Sec.13. Section 13(1) of the Act, so far is relevant, reads as follows:-
“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 the Railways Act. (a) relating to the responsibility of the Railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of claims for –
- Compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by Railways”.
Section 15 of the Act deals with bar of jurisdiction. It reads as follows:-
“On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled, to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-Section (1) of Section 13”.
5. From the plain reading of above Sections of the Act, it was ascertained that the relevant sections of the Act only speaks about non-delivery of railway consignment or in other words for loss, destruction, damage , deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to Railways for carriage by the railways and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
6. However, the present case in hand relates to cancellation of Train after selling valid tickets to the passengers and non refund of fare to the passenger on approach. Hence the decision relied by the complainant in General Manager, SE Railway and other and V. Venugopal Reddy decided by our own Commission in CD Appeal No.722 of 1997 reported in 2005 (I) OLR (CSR) -34 has no relevancy with the present case in hand. However, reliance can be placed to a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013 (4) CLT 25 (NC) wherein it has been held that “The jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora cannot be barred by virtue of the provisions of Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, 1987.” In view of above facts and circumstances, this case is maintainable under C.P. Act. The preliminary objection of the OP is decided accordingly.
7. While coming to the merit of the case, it is seen that there is no objection of the OP.2 regarding cancellation of Chennai-Guwahati Express on 02.10.2017. The contention of the complainant that he requested the station authorities of Egmore for refund of ticket fare after cancellation of said train cannot be disbelieved. According to the complainant, the station authorities at Egmore advised the complainant to claim refund from OP.1 – the ticket issuing authority and hence the complainant approached OP.1 at Jeypore on 06.10.2017 who stated that their computer is not showing cancellation of said train on 02.10.2017 and advised the complainant to approach OP No.2 for refund.
8. The complainant has claimed refund before OP.2 by sending necessary documents through Speed Post on 10.10.2017 at 12.18 from Jeypore but the OP.2 repudiated the claim stating that “refund not claimed within 10 days from the date of journey”. From the counter of OP.2 it was ascertained that the claim application was received by them on 17.10.2017. However, no postal acknowledgement has been furnished by the OP.2 in order to prove their contention that they received the claim application on 17.10.2017 only.
9. It is seen that the complainant had approached station authorities at Egmore on 02.10.2017 for refund of fare who advised to approach OP.1. The complainant on 06.10.2017 has approached OP.1 who stated that their computer is not showing cancellation of said train on 02.10.2017 for which he advised the complainant to approach OP.2 and did not allow the complainant to deposit original ticket to get TDR. Thereafter the complainant has sent claim application along with original ticket to OP.2 on 10.10.2017. The OP.2 stated that the claim was not within 10 days as per Commercial Circular No.64 dt.05.11.2015 and hence denied. The above Circular being relevant, reads as follows:-
“As per Commercial Circular No.64 dt.05.11.2015 under Clause 23(1) where passenger could not reach the reservation counter for cancellation of tickets, he may apply for refund of fare within 10 days from the date of commencement of journey to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refund), Eco. Railways computed from the date of journey.”
10. Now it is to be seen whether the complainant had applied refund of fare within the time as prescribed in the above circular. As per record, the complainant has sent the claim application on 10.10.2017 to the OP.2 by Speed Post. If computed from the date of journey i.e.02.10.2017 it comes 9 days but not above 10 days. Hence the complainant had applied on the 9th day from the date of commencement of journey. The claim application was sent by Speed Post and hence the intention of the complainant is very clear and he has rightly applied for refund of fare well within 10 days from the date of commencement of journey. Further the circular does not say that the claim should be reached within 10 days from the date of commencement of journey to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refund) and for such misinterpretation of facts, the complainant should not be suffered. From the above facts and circumstances, we come to the conclusion that this case is maintainable under C. P. Act and the complainant has applied refund in time but the OP.2 denied the claim arbitrarily which is a gross deficiency in service on its part as we found. As such the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.2875/- towards full fare with interest @ 12% p.a. from the OP.2. Further due to such inaction of the OPs, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which he is entitled for some compensation and cost. Considering the sufferings, we fell, a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
11. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Op No.2 is directed to refund Rs.2875/- towards full fare with interest @ 12% p.a. from 02.10.2017 and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
