LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
South Eastern Railway Dr.Dilip Kumar Chakraborty
Sabinara Bye Lane,
Rather Sarak,
P.O. & P.S. Chandernagore,
Dist.Hooghly.
…. Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Chief Commercial Manager,(Refund),
South Eastern Railway,
14, Strand Road,
Kolkata-700 001
2. The Station Manager,
Chandernagore Railway Station
P.O. Chandernagore,
Dist.Hooghly
3. The Station Manager,
Barbil Railway Station,
South Eastern Railway
P.O.Barbil,
Dist.Keonjhar, Orissa.
Present : D.K.Basu President,
S.Basu, Member
R.Roychowdhury Malakar, Member
Date of delivery of judgement ….26.11.2009
The fact of the complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows :
The complainant Dr.Dilip Kumar Chakraborty has filed this complaint against the OP no.1 Chief Commercial Manager, (Refunds) , South Eastern Raiwaly, Strand Road, Kolkata -700 001, Op no.2 Station Manager, Chandernagore Railway Station, Op no.3 The Station Manager Barbil Railway Station , South Eastern Raiwaly, District Keonjhar, Orissa alleging that he purchased a railway reservation ticket for journey from Barbil Station to Howrah for himself and his wife , by 2022 Janasatabdi Express, for the journey on 15.10.2007 vide reservation ticket no.640-5827872 and 28316046 and seat no. C1 40 and 41 . On 15.10.2007 arriving at Barbil station came to know that the train no. 2022 Barbil Jana Satabdi Express was cancelled and they could not perform their journey. Being dissatisfied he lodged a complaint before the OP no.3 in the prescribed printed form vide no.001808 dated 15.10.2007. The Op no.3 took deposit of the said ticket from the complainant on issuing proper ticket deposit receipt vide KGP 142376 dated 15.10.2007 at 14.05 hours. Returning home the complainant made an application for refund of the fare for the said journey and demanded refund of Rs.790/- by filling up specific application form on 22.10.2007 . After expiry of six months from that date he did not get back the refund amount. Thereafter, he also issued a reminder on 7.5.2008 and sent the same under Certificate of Posting but nothing was refunded to him. For the aforesaid willful negligence and inaction on the part of Op no.1 the Ops did gross deficiency in service . By filing the instant case he has prayed for a direction upon the Op no.1 to refund Rs.790/- with interest @ 12 per cent per annum from 13.11.2007 till payment thereof, Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, Rs.2000/- as litigation cost and other reliefs.
After receipt the notice of this case the OP no.1 appeared and contested this case and the Op no.2 and 3 did not turn up. Hence the case is heard exparte against them.
The Op no.1 by filing written version has contested this case alleging that under the law save and except before the Railway Claims Tribunal no money claim is maintainable against the Union of India (Railways).The Ops have not up-to-date repudiated and /or refused the claim of the petitioner. As such, the case is not maintainable. The Union of India is the proper party . The complainant has sought to wrong Forum for redress his grievance and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
In view of the above facts the point to consider whether the case is maintainable in its present form and there caused any deficiency in service by the Ops.
FINDINGS WITH REASONS:
The learned lawyer of the complainant has argued that pursuant to Section 3 of this Act the case is maintainable. The provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law. He has further argued that the Op has not specifically denied that the complainant did not purchase the railway ticket. On the other hand, in paragraph 3 of the written version it has stated “that the employer of this OP , the Union of India has up to date of filing of this case as has not repudiated and /or refused the claim of the petitioner . The present complaint filed is a prematured one …………”
Thus the Op has admitted that no refund has yet been taken place.
The learned lawyer of the Op has argued that the claim of refund of money cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum. The complainant ought to prefer the forum for redressal his grievance to Railway Claims Tribunal. The Consumer Forum has not jurisdiction to entertain this case.
Section 3 of this Act provides “the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”. This seems that this Act is not derogatory to the other law namely the Railway Claims but in addition to, the provisions of this Act renders relief to the consumer.
In a reported case 2007 CTJ 131 (Rovers Eye) (Sep. 2007) “Chairman Railway Board faces jail for flouting Forum’s order…………..in an order passed by a Consumer Forum four Railway officials including the Railway Board Chairman, General Manager and Divisional Manager were sentenced to one month imprisonment and to pay Rs.2000/- each for their failure to comply with the Forum’s order.”
In that case the Forum passed order against the Railway authority for refund of money expended for obtaining a railway ticket and due to failure to get back money , the complainant filed the case and ultimately the case ended with Execution case and the above order was passed.
Learned Lawyer of the complainant by filing a petition today , 26.11.2009 has contended that he has already received Rs.790/- , the refund of the money of the ticket and he does not want to get back Rs.790/- the cost of obtaining the reservation ticket. But he wants compensation and litigation cost..
According to the complaint the complainant has not obtained refund of Rs.790/- from the oP till the date of filing of this case i.e. till 14.7.2008. The complaint transpires that he appliled for refund money of the ticket by filling up a specific application form on 22.10.2007. Since then on the date of filing of this case i.e. till 14.7.2008 he did not obtain refund as alleged. According to the complainant during pendency of this case the refund is made. As the ops are refunded the alleged money to the complainant after a lapse of considerable period, obviously the oPs have committed negligence/deficiency in service on their part.
In view of the above Rulings and pursuant to Section 3 of this Act we are of opinion that this forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
Perused the Xerox copy of the documents filed by the complainant.
In view of the above aspects and on scrutiny the documents we are of opinion that the Ops have committed negligence /deficiency in service and the complainant has succeeded to substantiate his case.
On scrutiny of the complaint the harassment and mental agony as depicted in the complaint may be mitigated , in ourconsidered view, if a sum of Rs.1000/- is awarded as compensation to the complainant.
Hence ordered
That the instant case is allowed on contest .with cost of Rs.500/- against Op no.1 and exparte against the rest Ops.
The Op no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the complainant as compensation.
The Op no.1 is further directed to pay Rs.500/- as litigation cost and Rs.1000/- as compensation in all Rs.1500/- within 40 days from th date of this order, failing which the amount accrue interest @ 8% p.a. till the date of the entire payment is made from this date. .
Hand over a copy of the judgement to the party free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by
me
Submit Complaint..
