Delhi

New Delhi

CC/621/2015

Rakesh Chawala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Of India - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.621/2015                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

            Rakesh Chawla,

           C-23, 1^st Floor, Ganesh Nagar,

          Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18.

                              ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Union of India through General Manager,

Baroda House,

New Delhi.

                       Opposite Party.

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that on 14.4.2014, the complainant booked confirmed E-tickets   from New Delhi to Jammu for 13.6.2014  for three persons. On the day of journey, the complainant found at the train chart that their tickets were from Pathankot instead of New Delhi Boarding.  The complainant approached IRCTC office and where his boarding was still showing from New Delhi.  They told us to contact  with higher authorities where we got no satisfactory response.  During the day of journey,  the complainant and his family had to go through a very embarrassing situation. Thereafter, the complainant approached with Railway Minister and other higher officials  i.e. CCM, GM CVO and along with this an RTI filed but response was  negative.  During   this period, the complainant has been received a sum of Rs.1595/- as a ticket refund instead of R.2,135/-.  The complainant filed the 1^st and IInd Appeal for the RTI to get a satisfactory answer of why his boarding was changed.  When the complainant found no response from the Indian railway to sort out the difficulty caused to him, complainant, therefore approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

2.     Complaint has been contested by OP. In its written statement, OP has stated that the present complainant is totally misconceived ban and liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.  It is stated that OP has no role to pay in this case because the boarding point of journey ticket was changed by booking operator of Defense PRS, location, Ratnu Chak(Jammu).  It is further stated that cause of action has not arose in Delhi, therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  It is submitted by the OP that the reply of RTI has already been given to the complainant by the office of APOI/Ferozpur, Punjab about the factual position of alleged change of boarding point and due action was taken by Railway Admn.   It is stated that Railway Admn. has already refunded due amount of Rs.1595/- to the complainant account and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint

3.     In the present case, the complainant was residing at Tilak Nagar, New  Delhi  where he purchased the online E-ticket.  The OP mentioned in the arrays of the parties is having its office at Baroda House, New  Delhi.  The deficiency in services as alleged by the complainant i.e boarding point of journey ticket was changed by booking operator of Defense PRS, location, Ratnu Chak(Jammu) also does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction  of this Forum, hence, neither the OP nor the cause of action arose within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Forum

4.     On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, we are guided by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition bearing No.575/18 was filed by the petitioner Sh. Prem Joshi against the order of Hon’ble State Commission dated 1.11.2017 titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Park Inn, in which the Hon’ble National Commission held as under on 1/3/2018:-

“In terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be instituted inter-alia in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action only or in part arises.  The case of the complainant is that the ticket for visiting the amusement park was purchased by him online in his office in Karol Bagh and it is the District Forum at Tis Hazari has territorial jurisdiction over the mattes in which cause of action arises in Karol Bagh.  The cause of action is bundle of facts which a person will have to prove in order to succeed in the Lis.  Therefore, in order to succeed in the consumer complaint, the complainant will necessarily have to prove the purchase of the ticket in entering amusement park situated at Sonepat.  Since the tickets was allegedly purchased at the office of the complainant situated in Karol Bagh, the Distict Forum having territorial jurisdiction over Karol Bagh area would have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint”.

 

5.     Therefore, we hold that this District Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission titled as Prem Joshi Vs. Jurasik Part Inn in Revision Petition No.575/18 and the legal position discussed above.  Let the complaint be returned to the complainant along with documents for presenting before the concerned District Forum in accordance with Law.

Copy  of   the order may  be  forwarded  to  the  complainant  to   the

case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on  02/08/2019.

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                            (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                      (H M VYAS)

                          MEMBER                                                    MEMBER