BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 272/2005
Date of presentation: 16.09.2005
Date of decision: 31.07.2009
Pawan Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Sita Ram,
R/O Daya Ram Building, Opposite Temple,
Main Bazar, Kasumpti, Shimla-171009.
… Complainant.
Versus
The Chief Commercial Manager, (Refund)
Northern Railway, 2nd Floor, Station Building,
New Delhi-110055.
…Opposite Party
For the complainant: Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate vice
Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Mr. Jagat Shyam, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:-
This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OP-Northern Railway. The complainant avers that he is an Ayurvedic Doctor and he along with, his friend intended to visit Tirruvantpuram, from Ambala and for the purpose, he got reservation of ticket in the train leaving to Tiruvantpuram. He got the journey-cum-reservation ticket from Shimla and they started their journey from Ambala Cantt to Tiruvantpuram on 17.12.2003. It is averred that while traveling in Anantapuri Express on 22.12.2003, a TTE boarded the compartment of the berth of the complainant and asked him, to show the original tickets and when TTE was told that original ticket from Ambala to Tiruvanantpuram has inadvertently been left at his house (Chennai) which was amounting to Rs.1250/-, but the said TTE did not agree with him, and prepared another ticket of excess amount of Rs.558/-. Thereafter, when the complainant reached Shimla, he approached the office of the OP at Shimla and requested them for refund of the excess amount. When, they did nothing in the matter, he sent written communication to the OP, which did not bear any result. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in his favour.
2. The OP, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objection vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint in as much, as, territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint in view of provisions of Section 13, 15 and 28 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. On merits, it is contended that the complainant while traveling in Anantpuri Express on 22.12.2003, he did not possess a valid Ticket and as such, the TTE has rightly issued a Ticket for the excess amount of Rs.558/- and the complainant was given berth to travel in the train. They further contend that as the complainant was traveling without Ticket, the OP was within their right to charge the fare from him. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. The complainant had obtained a journey-cum-reservation ticket from the office of the OP at Shimla and had commenced journey to his destination under Annexure C-1, which is a photocopy of the journey-cum-reservation ticket issued by the branch office of the OP, at, Shimla. However, on his boarding Anantapuri Express, on, 17.12.2003, a, TTE discarded Annexure C-1 and charged, an, amount of Rs.558/- in excess of the amount already paid by the complainant to the OP. However, he, was allotted the same berth, as, has been allotted to him in Annexure C-1. Obviously, when there was, no, other reservation for the berth, which was allotted by the TTE. The OP does not contest the fact that Annexure C-1 was not a photocopy of the original, as, is, evident from the fact that that it has disclosed in its reply that the excess amount of Rs.558/- was offered to the complainant. Such an offer on its part signifies acquiescence of the fact that Annexure C-1 was authenticate. Naturally, the TTE ought not to have discarded Annexure C-1, as, purchased, by, the complainant, without having cogent reasons to do so. Therefore, his, act, in, charging Rs.558/-, is, untenable. Besides directing the refund of the excess amount of fare along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from 22.12.2003, it is also thought fit, that, since by the act of the TTE, pain, suffering as well, as, harassment was caused to the complainant, we deem, it, fit and proper and in the interest of justice, to, award compensation of Rs.3500/- in favour of the complainant, besides, litigation cost of Rs.1500/-.
6. Accordingly, we, allow this complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.558/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 22.1.2003, till the making entire payment of the amount aforesaid. The OP is also saddled with compensation of Rs.3500/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.1500/-, payable to the complainant by the OP. This order shall be complied with, by the OP, within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. With this, the complaint stands disposed of finally. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 31st day of July, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Karuna Machhan) (Charanjit Singh)
Member Member.