DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 273 of 23-06-2010

Decided on : 08-12-2010

Gurdeep Singh, aged about 52 years, S/o Sh. Bhajan Singh, R/o Village Gobindpura Tehsil & District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi, through its General Manager.

2. Station Master, Bathinda Railway Station, Northern Railway, Bathinda.

 

..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg counsel for the

opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as ’Act’). The complainant purchased seven tickets on 13-06-2010 for himself and his relatives vide ticket No. N-16529213 (4 tickets) and No. N-16529214 (3 tickets) of Train No. 1SHB (Passenger) from Bathinda to Shri Ganganagar and paid Rs. 140/-. The complainant alongwith his relatives boarded the aforesaid train from Bathinda on 13-06-2010. They left Bathnda at 7.00 A.M and reached Abohar at 9.45 A.M. Instead of going to Shri. Ganganagar, the train was terminated at Abohar and all the passengers of the said train requested the officials of the opposite parties to provide them alternate train for reaching Shri Ganganagar but to no effect. The mail train was also coming from Bathinda to Shri Ganganagar but the officials of the opposite parties did not allow the complainant, his relatives and other passengers to travel in the mail train on the tickets purchased by them for passenger train. The complainant alongwith his relatives had to rush from Railway Station Abohar to Bus Stand Abohar and reached Shri Ganganagar by Bus. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint and prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/- alongwith cost of Rs. 11,000/-.

2. The opposite parties filed their written reply and taken legal objection that present complaint can only be decided by Railway Claims Tribunal and has taken support of precedent laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case cited as 2008(2) CLT page 93 (NC). The second objection taken by the opposite parties is that intricate question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which requires voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in summary procedure under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For this, he has taken support of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission in the cases cited as 2002 (1) CPJ 16 (SC), 2008(3) CLT 481 (NC) and 2008(2) CLT 94 (NC). On merits, the opposite parties have pleaded that it was for the complainant to prove that he alongwith his relatives have boarded the train on that day and even if the complainant was able to prove that they boarded the said train in that case also, train No. 1SHB (passenger) had to be terminated at Abohar as construction/renovation of Bridge No. 143 was going on between the track of Abohar to Shri Ganga Nagar between the stations of Panj Koshi to Hindumal Kot from 7.30 A.M to 11.30 A.M. The said construction/renovation was in public interest and for safety of tracks and public and in case the train was terminated at a particular station for said purposes, it could in no way be treated as deficiency in service. If the complainant and his relatives boarded train No. 1SHB and went upto Abohar, he could wait upto 11.30 A.M. and thereafter could board another passenger train for going to Shri Ganganagar or could board mail/express train by getting his tickets converted into tickets for mail/express train by paying differences of charges but the complainant has alleged that he went by bus. The Bus Stand is at a short distance from Railway Station Abohar and bus service is very frequent i.e. after every 5-10 minutes.

3. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. We have heard the arguments at length and have gone through the record and perused written submissions submitted by the parties.

5. The complainant purchased seven tickets for himself and his relatives of Train No. 1SHB (passenger) vide Nos. N. -16529213 (4 tickets) and N-16529214 (3 tickets) on 13-06-2010 from Bathinda to Shri Ganganagar and paid Rs. 140/-. He boarded in the said train on 13-06-2010 at 7.00 A.M. and after reaching at Abohar at 9.45, instead of going to Shri Ganganagar the train was terminated. The complainant and other passengers of the train requested the officials of the opposite parties to made some alternate arrangement, but they did not accede to their request and ultimately, the complainant and his relatives reached Shri Ganganagar by bus. The complainant has placed on file two railways tickets showing four tickets for Rs. 80/- Ex. C-7 and three tickets for Rs. 60/- Ex. C-8. He has also placed on file seven bus tickets Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-15. The relatives of the complainant for whom he has purchased the aforesaid railway tickets have neither filed the complaint alongwith the complainant nor they have given any consent or authority to the complainant on their behalf. This complaint has been filed by the complainant individually. So, he is not entitled for the claim on behalf of the other passengers. Thus, out of the seven tickets, his claim remains only for one ticket i.e. Rs. 20/-.

6. The objection raised by the opposite parties that the present complaint can only be decided by Railway Claims Tribunal is not tenable as the remedy available under the ’Act’ is an additional remedy as Section 3 of the ’Act’ envisage :-

   “3. Act not in derogation of any other law – The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

7. The complainant has placed on record a complaint Ex. C-16 made by the complainant and other passengers of the train in question in the Public Complaint Book at Abohar on 13-06-2010 at 9.50 A.M. whereby they have requested the officials of the opposite parties to pay them compensation in addition to refund of the amount of the ticket but no action has been taken by the opposite parties on this complaint.

   The opposite parties have taken plea that tickets placed on the file were issued at 7.02 A.M. whereas the actual departure time of said train was 7.05 A.M. The train No. 1SHB (passenger) left Bathinda at its right time on 13-06-2010 from platform No. 1 which is at a far off place from the ticket issuing office and a minimum of 6-7 minutes are required to reach platform No. 1. Therefore, it was not possible for the person who purchased the ticket at 7.02 A.M. to board the train at 7.05 A.M. from platform No. 1. This plea of the opposite parties is also not tenable as other passengers/persons might have reached at platform No. 1 and one person might have reached platform No. 1 after purchasing tickets by running to board-in the said train in question.

   The train in question was terminated at Abohar Station as construction/renovation of Bridge No. 143 was going on between the track of Abohar to Shri Ganganagar between the Stations of Panj Koshi to Hindumal Kot. No doubt, the said construction/renovation was in public interest and for safety of tracks and public but the said renovation/construction must be pre-planned and in such a case, the opposite parties were duty bound to display on some Board or computerized screen etc., that Train No. 1SHB (passenger) would be terminated at Abohar Station but the opposite parties have not displayed

    

   any information in this regard on any Board or through any other mode of communication like announcement, through ticket issuing person etc.,to aware the passengers and due to this lapse on the part of the opposite parties, passengers boarded in the train in question suffered a lot. The support can be sought by precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Karnatka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in the case titled 2003(I) CPJ 603 wherein it has been held :-

   (i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Railway – Deficiency in service – Derailment of goods train enroute – Complainants stranded in between – AC facility switched off for no valid reasons – Authorities failed to do alternative arrangement – Connecting train left, part of journey performed by bus after facing uncertainties and mental trauma – Refund delayed by 3 months – Deficiency in service proved – O.Ps liable to pay compensation of Rs. 3,710/- with interest @18% p.a. on fare amount.”

   Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8. With utmost regard and humility to the aforesaid authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts.

9. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted against opposite party No. 2 with Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and cost and dismissed qua opposite party No. 1.

   The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay the awarded amount in his official capacity on behalf of Northern Railway and not in his individual capacity.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

08-12-2010

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul) Member