Haryana

Karnal

CC/23/2017

Vimal Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Balbir Singh Chauhan

02 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No.23 of 2017

                                                         Date of instt. 20.01.2017

                                                         Date of decision:02.07.2018

 

1.  Vimal Kumar son of Shri Ramesh Kumar.

2.  Parveen Kumar son of Shri Balbir Singh.

    Both resident of village Bhaini Khurd Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

               Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

Present:  Shri Balbir Singh Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri Subhash Chander Advocate for OP.

              

 

ORDER:                    

         

                   (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainants had applied for the post of Civil Judge in Chhatisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur and in that regard Chhatisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur has sent admit cards vide Roll no.1608102478 of complainant Vimal Kumar and vide Roll no.1608101228 of complainant Parveen Kumar and examination was to be held on 11.12.2016 at 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. The complainants had booked Railway Tickets form Railway Station, Karnal for Raipur Junction (Chhatisgarh) of Jammu Durg Express for departure and arrival vide tickets no.280-5186044. In the ticket of arrival the time of train is mentioned at Panipat Junction on 15.35 on 9.12.2016 and time for time reaching mentioned as 18.05 on 10.12.2016 at Raipur Junction. The complainants reached in time at Panipat Junction and on reaching the complainants came to know that the train is 3 hours late mentioned on notice board and when complainant reached after 3 hours then station master said that the said train reached at Ambala and came after 1/ 1½ hours. Lateron complainants waited the train but the train could not come on said day and came on next day i.e.10.12.2016 at 5.00 p.m., it seems expected time of reaching at 5.00 p.m. on 11.12.2016 but the said train could not reach in time at Raipur Junction and it reached at 12.00 noon at Raipur Station i.e. 18 hours late from the said time mentioned on the ticket. Due to this reason the complainants were not appear in the said examination and suffered huge loss. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OP many times and requested to pay the claim but OPs always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and now a day flatly refused to pay the claim. Due to this act and conduct of OP complainants suffered huge loss, mental pain and agony. Hence complainants filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and cause of action and jurisdiction. On merits, it is submitted that running of train was not due to any irregularity of Railway but it was purely due to fog and this natural reasons is totally beyond the control of Railway. Hence there is no short coming on the part of Railway. It is further submitted that neither the complainant contacted to station Master/Panipat regarding his train number. There is no complaint in the complaint book regarding his train which was available at the station. There is no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Parveen Kumar Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Vimal Kumar Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 22.12.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajneesh Kumar Divisional Operation Manager Ex.OW1/A and document Ex.O1 and closed the evidence on 11.5.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Without going into any other controversy on merits of the case, it is necessary to decide firstly that whether this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint or not?

7.             According to the pleadings of the complainants as mentioned in prayer clause of the complaint that complainants sought relief of an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- each as compensation in lieu of for mental pain, agony, harassment and loss of time and also demanded Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.  

8.             It is pertinent to mention here that in this complaint there are two complainants. From the above facts of the case, it is clear that the complainants sought the relief of Rs.38,00000/-(i.e.Rs.19,00,000/- for each complainant) which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence the total amount of compensation is more than Rs.20 lakhs.  Therefore, in view of section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint. Moreover, in this regard we can rely upon the authority cited in 2016 (4) CLT-133 (NC) titled as Parikshit Parasher Versus Universal Buildwell Private Limited & Ors.

9.             In view of the above and without going into other merits of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint and hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to file the complaint in the court of the competent jurisdiction as per provision of law. However, in view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the complainant would be at liberty to get the benefit of provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint before this Forum while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint in the court of competent jurisdiction. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:02.07.2018       

                                                                   President

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member