DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.869/2006
1. Harish K. Chainani
2. Veena Chainani
Both R/o
A-1-7/603, Best View
Opp. Dindoshi Bus Depot,
Yashodham, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai-400063 ……Complainant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its General Manager
Ministry of Railways
having its office at Rail Mantralaya
Railway Board, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi-110001
2. General Manager
Western Railways, Church Gate
Mumbai-400020 …… Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 29.7.2003/19.12.2006
Date of Order : 01.03.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Complaint was filed on 29.7.2003. The same has been transferred to this Forum vide order dated 19.12.2006.
Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had booked two confirmed tickets for the train “Paschim Express” No. 2926 from Delhi to Mumbai and paid Rs.2280/-. They had to board the train as their tickets were confirmed for journey on 23.05.2003 in AC 3 tier Compartment (Coach No. AS-3). When the train arrived at New Delhi railway station from Amritsar at platform No. 5 at around 4:30 pm all the 72 passengers of coach AS-3 were shocked to see that the doors of the said coach were locked from inside and no railway official was present to inform as to why the said coach was locked. The railways officials kept shifting responsibility on administrative staff and/or technical staff and ultimately told the complainants and others passengers of coach AS-3 that it was not possible to rectify the fault and ultimately the railway authorities agreed to add a Second Class Non-AC coach towards the end of the train after a delay of almost 2 hours and the train departed at about 7 p.m. All the passengers boarded Second Class Non-AC coach. Complainants were forced to spend approx 24 hrs. in hot, humid and dirty condition and they were diabetic and suffered from high blood pressure. The TC prepared a certificate for grant of refund for the difference between AC 3 tier and Second Class Non AC Fare. They got the refund of the fare at Bandra terminal and the remaining fare charges after deducting fare (for Second Class non AC fare i.e. Rs.430 totaling Rs.860/-) was not received. The Complainants have stated that there was a gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Complainants have prayed as under:-
“(a) Hold that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in rendering service and direct them to refund even the balance train fare charged by them i.e. Rs. 860/- to Complainants 1 and 2 as the Complainants had never intended to travel by Second Class non- AC coach (in hot, dirty and humid conditions) as also the Opposite Parties i.e. Railways are not entitled to charge any fare for the Complainants’ Journey.
- Hold that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in rendering service and direct the Opposite Parties to compensate the Complainants No. 1 and 2 to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as explained above.
- Direct the Opposite Parties to pay interest to the complainants on the above amounts [(a) to (c )] @ 15% p.a.
- Direct the Opposite parties to pay the cost of the present proceedings to the Complainants as the Complainants are forced to approach this Hon’ble Forum due to the acts of omission/Commission and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Parties.”
OPs in the written statement have stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint as per sections 13, 15 and 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short, the ‘Act’). OPs have further stated that there was a technical fault and failure of the AC system in one of the compartments of the train which was beyond repairs and in a short span of time they could not arrange A.C. 3 tier coach but they accommodated all the passengers including the Complainants of the said A.C. 3 tier compartment in another standby non-AC Compartment and the difference of fair of all the passengers including the Complainants was refunded immediately. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as they promptly provided the facilities available with them. Reliance has been placed on section 51 of the Railways Act, 1989 which reads as follows :-
“51 - Provisions for case in which ticket is issued for class or train not having accommodation for additional passengers-
- A ticket shall be deemed to have been issued subject to the condition of availability of accommodation in the class of carriage and the train for which the ticket is issued.
- if no accommodation is available in the class of carriage for which a ticket is issued and the holder thereof travels in a carriage of a lower class, he shall, on returning such ticket, be entitled to a refund of the difference between the fare paid by him and the fare payable for the class of carriage in which he travels.”
OPs have further stated that the Complainants are not entitled to refund of fare of Rs.430/- each as there was neither any deficiency in service on the part of OPs nor any deliberate or intentional act of negligence on behalf of the OPs. OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Complainants have filed rejoinder to the written statement of OPs.
Complainant No. 1 has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Saroj Gupta, Assistant Commercial Manager (Refund) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed. We have heard the arguments on behalf of OPs and have also gone through the file very carefully.
We straightaway come to the question, whether the Complainants are not entitled to any refund/compensation on account of travelling in Non-AC 2nd class instead of 3 tier A.C. coach?
It is not in dispute that the Complainants had booked two tickets from New Delhi to Mumbai as confirmed tickets for journey on 23.05.2003 in Paschim Express Train No. 2926. Due to technical fault in the A.C. compartment which was continuing from Amritsar itself(original railway station of departure of the train and which journey had been undisputedly completed from Amritsar to New Delhi Railway Station between 8-10 hours) the OPs did not arrange a 3 tier AC coach inspite of this long period and only arranged Non-AC second class coach to the passengers including Complainants after almost 2 hours from the arrival of the train at New Delhi Railway Station. It clearly demonstrates that the OPs had acted in a most negligent and irresponsible manner. The TC issued a refund slip to the Complainants for the difference between AC 3 tier and Second Class Non-AC fare. The Complainants got the refund of the fare at Bandra station as admitted by the Complainant as Ex. B. In our considered opinion, when the passenger has a confirmed ticket, section 51 of the Railways Act would not come for the rescue of the OPs.
In view of the above, it proves that the Complainants had to travel from A.C. to Non-A.C. coach from New Delhi to Mumbai in the month of May even though they had confirmed ticket of AC 3 tier. They travelled in second class Non-AC coach from Delhi to Mumbai. It took approx. 24 hours to reach the destination. During the journey they faced many problems like hot weather, humid and dirty condition. Hence, there was a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. We allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- to each Complainant for mental agony and harassment undergone by the Complainants including cost of litigation within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of complaint till realization. .
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 01.03.2016
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 869/06
01.03.16
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is allowed. OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to each Complainant for mental agony and harassment undergone by the Complainants including cost of litigation within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
