A.P. SAHI, J, PRESIDENT

1.       This Revision Petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) dated 09.03.2018 and the Order in First Appeal before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) dated 25.03.2019, whereby the claim of the Respondent herein for refund of sum of Rs.230/- has been allowed and a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded as compensation.  The conclusion drawn by both the Foras below, on fact and law, has been assailed, contending firstly that it was a claim of refund of travel fare by train, as such the claim was entertainable under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 under Section 13(1)(b) thereof and not before the Consumer Forum.  It is the case of the Revisionists that the jurisdictional bar contained in Section 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act also renders the claim petition not maintainable, on which grounds erroneous findings have been recorded by the District Forum as also the State Commission.  Hence, the Impugned Orders are vitiated and deserve to be set aside.

2.       On merits, it has been urged that the findings recorded by the Forums below on the issue of deficiency of service is contrary to the weight of evidence on record, inasmuch as due notice and announcements had been made for all passengers, including the Respondent.  As such, there was due intimation regarding the change of travel class.  It is submitted that all formalities regarding intimation were duly and diligently followed as per the rules and regulations of the Railways and no inconvenience at all was caused to the Respondent as he undertook the journey as planned by him.  In these circumstances, it is urged that he was not entitled for any compensation nor was he entitled to partial refund of fare, as claimed by him, because the Railways had offered full refund in case the passengers did not opt to travel in the alternative accommodation provided.  Learned Counsel vehemently urged that to the contrary, the Respondent had voluntarily accepted the alternative travel plan in second class ordinary coach as per his planned journey without raising any protest.  Hence, his claim petition deserves to be dismissed.

3.       We have considered the submissions raised and, on the issue of jurisdiction, it is by now well settled by several pronouncements, including that of the Apex Court, keeping in view the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that the provisions of 1986 Act are in addition and supplemental to any other law for the time being in force.  There is no ouster of jurisdiction or absolute bar.  Hence, the claim petition was maintainable and we approve of the findings on this issue by the Forums below.

4.       The second contention as a corollary to the first is that the claim was for refund of fare, which was covered by Section 13(1)(b) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.  The petition not being barred under Section 15 of the Act, there cannot be an implied bar taking recourse to Section 13(1)(b).  As indicated above, neither is there a bar of jurisdiction nor is there ouster so as to maintain a claim petition before the Consumer Forum, which is essentially complaining about deficiency in service on the part of the Railways, as would be evident from the findings recorded by the Forums below and the reasons given hereinafter.

5.       On merits, it is undisputed that the Respondent had purchased a travel ticket by train in AC chair car from Barnala to Sriganganagar on 18.04.2017 and a return journey ticket on 19.04.2017 between the same stations.  The railway ticket purchased by the Respondent confirmed the reservation in his favour through an SMS and this online confirmation remains undisputed.

6.       On 19.04.2017, when the Respondent reached the railway station for undertaking his return journey from Sriganganagar to Barnala, he found the AC chair car accommodation not available, whereupon he started making enquiries from the Train Ticket Examiner, the Guard and the Station Master and he was also sent to the Computer Room to seek information but, according to the Respondent, the same was of no avail and he was not given any intimation whatsoever about the change of coach from AC chair car to second class ordinary coach.  Since the time was short, the Respondent in this helpless condition and being driven to the wall was left with no other option but to undertake the journey in the second class ordinary coach, with no help coming from any quarter to either inform him about this sudden suo-moto change or provide any relief.

7.       It is also clear from the pleadings on record and which fact remains undisputed that the confirmation of an AC chair car ticket was transmitted to the Respondent online but no information about any such change in the travel plan was intimated through SMS.  The channel of booking and confirmation, therefore, being through SMS, could have been intimated to the Respondent online, which admittedly was not done.  It is, therefore, apparent that it was at the time of boarding the train that this confusion erupted, for which the Railways contend that they had to bring about a change on account of defect in the AC coach, which was undergoing overhauling, and, therefore, in the interest of safety of the passengers, an alternative second class ordinary coach was attached, on which the Respondent undertook his journey.  The defence taken by the Railways was that they had made an announcement and had also displayed a notice chart.  A copy of the chart of reservation and booking, in which this change had been indicated, is said to have been placed before the District Forum.  The Forums below did not find any such evidence so as to demonstrate actual intimation to the Respondent, and, to our mind also, this could have been very easily achieved digitally by sending an SMS message to the Respondent passenger, which was not done.  The Respondent, therefore, did not have any intimation of this sudden change of class or any offer for refund of the entire amount.  Even otherwise, an offer of entire refund is no substitute as that would have resulted in the cancellation of the journey of the Respondent, who as indicated in the pleadings, was a Bank official and had to return to attend the duties.  The journey of the passenger was, therefore, made distressful on account of lack in services that were required to be tendered on both counts of lack of intimation through SMS and the option given to the passenger to cancel his journey.  The Railways, therefore, did not act diligently and the deficiency in service is established.  In these circumstances, both the Forums below were justified in ordering the partial refund that was claimed by the Respondent, being the difference of the amount of the fare of AC chair car and second class ordinary coach.  The Respondent had simply asked for refund of the difference in fare of Rs.230/- on account of this harassment and distress pointing towards the deficient conduct of the Railways.     

8.       Having said so, we also find it necessary to mention it for some future guidance that the Railways have pursued this matter of a claim of Rs.230/- for the past six years, which must have entailed huge legal expenses at the cost of the public exchequer.  The litigation could have been very easily avoided by the Railways instead of carrying out this litigative pursuit resulting in loss of public money, time and even the valuable period that was consumed in the litigation before the three Forums.  Such a practice needs to be deprecated and, for this additional reason as well, we find that this Revision Petition ought to be dismissed.       

9.       In the Application for Stay, filed by the Revisionists, we find in para-11 it has been stated that a statutory amount of Rs.7500/- has been deposited before the State Commission, being 50% of the decretal amount, vide Demand Draft dated 09.04.2018.  The balance of the amount shall also be reimbursed as directed by the State Commission and shall be released in favour of the Respondent as per the directions aforesaid without any further delay.

10.     The Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations.