Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/736

Sachin KUmar s/o Shri Lajja Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Pabbi Adv

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                          C.C.No.736 of 29.10.2014

                                                          Date of Decision:23.07.2015

 

Sachin Kumar son of Shri Lajja Ram, resident of 609/15, Street No.1, Sham Nagar, Near Bus Stand, Ludhiana.

                                                                                      … Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1.Union of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi through its Secretary.

2.Northern Railways, Ferozepur through its Divisional Commercial Manager/APIO.

3.Manjit Kaur, Deputy CIT, Northern Railways, Jalandhar City.                      

 

                                                                    …             Opposite Parties

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986

Quorum     Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                  

Present       Sh.S.K.Pabbi, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh.Iqbal Singh, Adv. for Ops.

 

                                                ORDER

 

SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Sachin Kumar(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainants’) against Union of India, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi through its Secretary and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to make the payment of Rs.500/- as charges of two tickets alongwith Rs.2.00 lakh as compensation on account of mental pain and agony and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 7.11.2012 at about 3:42 P.M., the complainant purchased two tickets bearing No.W64787994 and W64787995 from the OP1 for Ludhiana to Nagda in Train No.12472 i.e. Swaraj Express. The said train was to go Nagda from Platform No.1, Railway Station Ludhiana. The seats of the complainant were not reserved, then the complainant came to know that the seats were available in the Sleeper Class-S9, as such, the complainant and his friend approached the TTE train concerned for allotment of two sleeper class and the said TTE had directed the complainant that the seats no.64 and 71 were available in S9 and the complainant and his friend can occupy those seats and he will charge the requisite fee against proper receipts and will accordingly, issued the same in favour of the complainant and his friends. As per the directions of the said TTE train, the complainant and his friend were in the process to occupy the said seats. In the meantime, the OP3 met with the complainant and his friend on platform no.1 and she issued receipt No.092789 dated 7.11.2012 for Rs.800/- instead of Rs.300/- for allotment of seats No.64 and 71 in Coach No.S9 in favour of the complainant. The complainant requested OP3 that she is not competent to issue such receipts in favour of the complainant. Even, she had charged excess of Rs.500/- for allotment of seats No.64 and 71 in Coach No.S9, to which, the complainant had objected and then the OP3 had misbehaved and insulted the complainant and his friend in the general public at large and also threatened to involve them in false criminal cases, if they date to initiate any type of action against her. The complainant immediately could not report the matter to the Railway Authorities due to the exigency of time as the train is ready to go for Nagda on the platform. On 14.11.2012, the complainant had come back from Nagda to Ludhiana and had made complaint No.092 dated 14.11.2012 for redressal of his grievances mentioned above with the department, in which, the OP1 and OP2 initiated legal action and informed the complainant vide letter No.1/CT/DTM/LDH/207/12 dated 21.11.2012, in which, the OP3 was held responsible for the said incident of excess from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant wrote letters of different dates to OP2 seeking information regarding action taken by the authorities against the OP3 under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 and to refund the excess amount charged by the OP3 from the complainant, but OP2 failed to provide any information to the complainant. The Ops are deficient in rendering services to the complainant due to which, the complainant has suffered mental pain and agony. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, Ops were duly served with who  appeared through their counsel Sh.Iqbal Singh, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, it has been submitted by the Ops in the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the answering Ops have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever from the answering Ops. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the answering Ops to file the present complaint and the same deserves dismissal. The complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint as the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and is guilty of suppression of true, actual and material facts from this Hon’ble Court. Reply on facts, it is submitted that the complainant does not fall under the definition of “Consumer” as defined in Consumer Protection Act. It is denied that the seats were available in Sleeper Class-S9 and further, it is denied that the complainant and his friend approached the TTE concerned for allotment of two sleeper class or the said TTE train directed the complainant that the seats No.64 and 71 are available in S9 or the complainant and his friend can occupy those seats or he will charge the requisite fee against the proper receipts or will accordingly issued the same in favour of the complainant and his friend as alleged. EFT was issued after inquiring the room availability from the concerned TTEs of the train No.12472 as ‘No Room’ was available in sleeper class and set No.64 & 71 in Coach No.S-9 were not mentioned by her (Smt.Manjit Kaur, Dy.CIT/JUC). These numbers were mentioned by the TTE of the train who managed the coach No.S-9 of the train. Contention of the complainant is claimed to be totally wrong as he was well known about the Railway Rule that reservation charts are being kept for only 6 months, but he has intentionally filed the present false complaint after a long period of about two years. As such, the genuineness of berth No.64 and 71 cannot be proved without having the amended reservation charts of coach No.S-9 of Train No.12472 dated 7.11.2012. It is denied that the answering OP3 met with the complainant and his friend or had issued receipt No.092789 dated 7.11.2012 for Rs.800/- instead of Rs.300/- for allotment of seats No.64 and 71 in Coach No.S9 as alleged. However, it is submitted that the amount of Rs.800/- was legally charged as per law and the same was deposited with Railway. It is denied that the complainant made any alleged request to the answering OP3 or she had charged excess Rs.500/- as alleged. The allegations are totally false. It is denied that any application dated 6.5.2014 was moved or no action has been taken on the same. The service of reminder is not denied, but the same was duly replied. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and all other allegations of the complainants being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Parties adduced their respective evidence by way of tendering their duly sworn affidavits and documents.  

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record on the file very carefully.

6.                It is evident that the complainant and his friend had travelled from Ludhiana to Nagda in train No.12472 i.e. Swaraj Express and the complainant had bought two tickets for ordinary coach from Ludhiana Railway Station as shown in document Ex.C1 which also shows that these tickets were not for the reserved class. The complainant had approached TTE train while boarding the aforesaid train, who directed the complainant to occupy the seats No.64 and 71 of Coach No.S9 because these seats were vacant and the TTE on train had further assured that the charges for the reservation will be as per the rules of the Railways. During the journey as alleged by the complainant, OP3 had charged Rs.800/- instead of Rs.300/- as reservation charges and as such, Rs.500/- had charged as penalty and issued the receipt No.092789 dated 7.11.2012 Ex.C2, wherein, Rs.800/- have been shown to have been charged from the complainant and seats No.S-9/64/71 has also been allotted in this very receipt. The complainant had filed a complaint before the Ops on 14.11.2012 at about 14:38 hours giving the details of the allegations levelled by the complainant in the main complaint. Ops vide their letter dated 21.11.2012 Ex.C4 had replied to the complainant, vide which, it was informed to the complainant that Railway receipt issued by Smt. Manjit Kaur Dy.CIT/JUC working under CIT/Line.JUC at Ludhiana for train No.12472 dated 7.11.2012 with penalty against the rule. She is held responsible for this complaint. Complaint has been forwarded to Sr.DCM/FZR for further necessary action against Smt.Manjit Kaur Dy.Cit/JUC. It was further informed by the Ops vide their letter dated 12.4.2013 Ex.C6 to the complainant that Smt.Manjit Kaur Dy.CIT/Jalandhar City has been taken under D&AR action for irresponsible behavior and causing a complaint.

7.                Thus, perusal of the record shows that the Ops have themselves already admitted that receipt Ex.C3 against the rules and they were held responsible for the complaint and further stated that OP3 has been taken under D&AR action for irresponsible behavior and causing a complaint vide Ex.C6. So, it appears that the Ops are proved to be deficient in rendering the services to the complainant.

8.            In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow this complaint and direct the Ops to make refund of Rs.500/- to the complainant and further, Ops are directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.2500/-(Two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

(Sat Paul Garg)                                 (R.L.Ahuja)

    Member                                         President    

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:23.07.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.