Karnataka

Bidar

CC/89/2015

Md. Sajjad Sait, s/o late J. Abdul Rehman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Superintendent. - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.Deshpande.Adv.

18 Apr 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                        C.C.No. 89/2015

 

                                                                                            Date of filing: 18/12/2015

 

                                                                                       Date of disposal : 18/04/2017

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa  (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A.LL.B.

                                                                                  Member

                                   

                                               

COMPLAINANT:              Md. Sajjad Sait, s/o late J. Abdul Rehman,                                                           

                                          Age : major, Occ: Private work,

                                          R/o 798, No.10^th main,

                                       3^rd stage, Pillanagagam, Bangalore-560045.

 

                                       (By Shri. Deshpande P.M.,Advocate)

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-          1.  The Station Superintendent

                                                Railway Station, Bidar-585401.

 

                                          2.  The Commercial Manager,

                                               South Central Railway,

                                               Secunderabad-500 001.(Telangana State)

 

                                       (  By Shri. Vilasrao M.More, Advocate)                                                 

                       

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

    The complainant has filed the complaint u/s.12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)  alleging  deficiency of service in the part of the O.Ps.

 

2.           The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that:

                          The complainant is a resident of Bangalore, he has connectivity with the every part of Karnataka being a social activist.  The complainant is Chairman for all Karnataka Auto Drivers, Okkuta, of Bangalore,  Chairman of Socio Political Organisation Under name ‘Jago Karnataka ‘at Banalore,  working Chairman Vishal Bharat Welfare Charitable Trust, at Bangalore & director for New Shine Foods Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore.  The complainant used to go to attend meetings/functions all over the Karnataka.  The complainant avers that he had come to Bidar with family members and had purchased 4 railway journey cum reservation tickets  vide no. A-53323675 / P.N.R.no.441-4317201 at Bidar  from Bidar to Yashvanthpur Jn. for  a cost of Rs.1,480/- ( including reservation fee), the date of journey was on 22/11/2015 and departure time was 18.10p.m.  The complainant after finishing his work at 5.00 p.m. at Bidar with this family members came to railway station Bidar and enquired with the OP-1.   It was said that the berth/ seats are under waiting  list without any chance to confirmation. So, the complainant at around 5.00 P.M. on 22/11/2015 asked at enquiry counter of O.P.1  to get the tickets cancelled,  as the reservations were not confirmed.  He was asked to wait till the departure of the train. The complainant after departure of the train, came to counter of O.P.1 and asked to cancel the reserved ticket and asked for refund of amount.  But, the O.P.no.1 flatly refused to cancel the tickets and talked adamantly and stated that, the tickets neither can  be cancelled and nor any  refund to be made.   The complainant is a B.P. /diabetic patient and had Cataract problem. After such event the complainant got mentally shocked and feeling giddiness went back from the Station.  The act of O.P. compelled him to stay at private lodge on higher payments and complainant felt inconvenience.  Due to non confirmation/cancellation of the train the complainant could not attend the meetings and other functions and other works which were to be held at Bangalore.  Due to none attending the meetings and functions the complainant has sustained heavy losses.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000 against the O.Ps.

 3.                 Entering into defense the O.P.no.2  had filed detailed written version therein the complainant had not made the Union of India represented by General  Manager, as per section 80 (1) (b) of CPC, which is stipulated that, whenever a case filed against the Railways, the General Manager of the Railway Zone must be made a party and hence this complaint is bad in law.  Under section 80 (1) of CPC which reads as follows, ‘No suits shall be instituted against the Government ( including the Government of the state of Jammu and Kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to’. As above, the complainant has not given notice to the O.P. The contents of para no.1 of the complaint are nowhere relalted to the alleged dispute raised by the complainant in this complaint.  Whatever capacity of the complainant shown in para no.1 (a) to (d) has been made to decorate the complaint with the malafide intention to extract the money formthe Railway.  Therefore this O.P.no.2 specifically and categorically denies the said entire contents.  The complainant had  purchased 4 railway journey cum reservation tickets no. A-53323675 at Bidar  from Bidar to Yashvanthpur Jn. for cost of Rs.1,480/- the date of journey was on 22/11/2015 and departure time was 18.10p.m. is not disputed by the O.P.no.2.  The O.P. had not guaranteed the confirmation of the wait listed ticket. A man of ordinary prudence, will not hesitate to opt for the alternative  conveyance to reach Bangalore, when he would be put to loss of Rs.1,00,000/- if he does not reach his destination.  If the complainant was having that much urgency to reach Bangalore he should not have booked  wait listed tickets.  The complainant had booked the waitlisted with ulterior motto only to blame the O.Ps  Further from the contents of the complaint it is evident that, the complainant has come to Bidar along with his family members with their personal work.  It is falsely contended by the complainant that, on that day at 5.00 p.m. he had come to know that, the ticket was not confirmed requested the O.P.no.1 for cancellation of reserved ticket and O.P.no.1 told him get it cancel on departure of Trainby 06.10 p.m. (18:10 Hrs.)  As a matter of fact, as per the rules for cancellation issued by the Ministry of Railways in CC.no.65 of 2015 issued vide no. TCII/2003/2015/Refund Policy/1 New Delhi dt. 06/11/2015, which had come into force from12/11/2015, the wait listed tickets can be cancelled only 00.30 hrs before the schedule departure of the train.  In this case the complainant had not approached the reservation counter at Bidar station before 17.40 hrs., the complainant should be put to strict proof of his averment.  The complainant has made false allegations in the compliant and he has further falsely claimed that, he has sustained the loss of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/- as stated on the page no.3 of the complaint, the O.P.s are neither liable to compensate nor had undertaken any responsibility for compensating the loss sustained to the travelling public hence, this complaint may be dismissed with costs.  

 

4.            Both the sides have filed their respective evidence affidavits and written arguments reiterating their respective stands and have further filed documents relied upon by them as listed at the end of this order.   The complainant has further submitted the evidence affidavit of one Sri.Chanbasappa, an independent witness, who vouches to have witnessed the exchange of words between the complainant and the establishment of the O.Ps date 22/11/2015.  The O.Ps have neither challenged the testimony of such witness and it remains uncontroverted till the end.

 5.         Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and the citation quoted by the complainant the following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Is this case not maintainable as claimed by the O.Ps?
2. Does the complainant prove that there has been a deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
3. What orders ?

6.       Our answers to the points raised are as follows:-

      1.   In the negative.

      2.   In the affirmative.

      3.  As per the final order for the following:

 

                                                :: R E A S O N S : :

 

7.  Point No.1:-  Opting to be unreasonably hyper technical, the O.Ps have raised the topic of section 80 of the C.P.C. and hype that, since sixty days  of notice has not been served on Union of India, the case is not maintainable.  The provision so envisaged deal with “ SUITS” claiming relief(s) against the Govt.(s) or their officials on a presumption that, the sovereign acts in good faith in favour of the citizens and thence an opportunity should be provided to a welfare state to justify it’s action in a suit for claims.  The C.P. Act, 1986 was but promulgated, vide it’s section 3 to be in addition and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.  The provisions of the Act and the jurisdictions of the Foras under the act are free from the sackles and nitty gritties of common law(s) of the Country, albeit for functional purpose, certain provisions of the Code of civil procedure and also those of code of criminal procedure have been incorporated in the C.P.Act, 1986.  No where but it is contemplated, the Consumer Foras would confine themselves to the intricacies of common law.   Such a contemplation would be on antithesis of the motto of imparting quick justice to the  consumers, which is the basic etho of the C.P. Act, 1986.  Hence, we answer the point in negative.

 

8.  Point No.2:-  The complainant claims that, he had approached the establishment of the O.P.no.1 at 5.00 p.m. of 22/11/2015 and coming to know about no chance of confirmation demanded the cancellation of the wait listed tickets.  He was advised by the person manning the counter to wait till the departure of the train at 6.10 p.m.  After that, when he made the second attempt, he was bluntly told that, no cancellation or refund was to be done and the window of the counter was closed on his face is most un civilised manner.  The entire episode has been witnessed by the independent witness Channabasappa and he has filed his evidence affidavit to that effect which was  ever challenged by the O.Ps.

9.              The O.Ps claim that, the cancellation of ticket rules which had come into effect from 12/11/2015 stipulating that, cancellation of tickets would be done only before 30 minutes of the departure of the train.  Be it whatsoever, the O.Ps have never claimed that the amended rules were ever widely publicised or displayed on the counters or other conspicuous places of the Railway Stations.  That apart, when the complainant approached the establishment of the O.P.no.1 at 5 p.m. of the date of journey for cancellation, why his demand was not entertained?  The fact speaks of itself that, even the employees of the O.Ps were not fully aware of the amended rules.  The corollary stinks of acute deficiency of service in the part of the O.Ps and we answer the point accordingly.

10. Point No.3:-    The complainant herein claims Lorry loads of relief(s) which are not substantiated by any cogent proof(s).  It may be so, the complainant is a social activist of paramount importance, which fact cannot be analysed by this Court.  However, the fact remains, he and his family members have suffered due to the lackadaisical attitude(s) of the Railway employees and he along with his family members comprising four members have suffered mentally and physically.  It is quite logical that, they had to avail accommodation in private lodges on account of discontinuation of journey and suffer agonisingly, mentally and physically and hence we proceed to pass the following:-

                                                       : :   ORDER : :

               The complaint is allowed in part.

 

              (a) The  O.Ps are hereby directed jointly and severally to refund the full amount of the ticket under caption from the date of contemplated journey till date of realisation along with 12% interest p.a.

 

             (b )   For the in conveniences caused due to apathy of the O.Ps employees, the O.Ps to reimburse a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the intending passengers of the ticket totalling in a sum of Rs.20,000/-

 

             (c) Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to be reimbursed by the O.Ps to the complainant.

 

             (d)    Four weeks time is granted to fulfil this order.

 

 

 

   ( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this  18^th  day of April-2017 )

 

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                               

           Member                                                                        President

                

                                                   

 

Documents produced by the complainant

                                                                                                                              

1.Ex.P.1- Railway ticket bearing no. A-53323675.

2.Ex.P.2- Cancellation requisition.

3.Ex.P.3- Introduction card.

 

Documents produced by the Opponents.

 

Ex.R.1-  Amended cancellation rules.  

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                               

           Member                                                                        President

 

mv