SRI. SAJEESH.K.P  : MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- as a ticket charge and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for  mental as well as physical agony, loss and damages caused to the complainant.

Brief of the complaint: - On 11/07/2017 the complainant along with 63 other members travelled  from Kannur to Jammuthavi for a pilgrimage by Mangala Express.  The complainant  and others booked train tickets from OP No.1 after getting prior permission of OP No.2  as it was a bulk booking.  The extended train ticket from New Delhi to Jammuthavi was booked in “Utter Sampark Kranth Express”.  At the time of booking, the status shown as ‘CNF’ in all tickets but coach number and Seat number was not stated in the tickets.  On enquiry with the booking clerk the complainant came to know that the seat as well as coach number will be provided at the time of preparing chart.  On 13/07/2017, when complainant and others reached New Delhi Railway Station, at about 16.56 hours railway announced that only 27 seats were confirmed out of 63 and others were in the waiting list.  Majority of the passengers including Senior Citizens were denied berth by railway and complainant constrained to travel without berth and prayed relief as stated in the complaint.

            After receiving notice from this commission, OP No.2 filed version for all OPs, and denied the averments in the complaint.  The OP’s raised maintainability issue on limitation and the complainant filed delay condonation petition while the case was posted for the objection on maintainability petition. According to the delay condonation petition, the delay is of 356 days and the explanation given is that delay caused due to the loss of tickets which was kept under the custody of Mr. Anurag T C who was the person communicated with OP after the denial of berth.  Moreover, the complainant forgot to sign in the delay condonation petition are the explanation given by complainant to condone the delay 356 days.  Besides those explanation, complainant failed to give any reasonable reason to condone the delay of 356 days.  If the complainant is aggrieved by the deficiency in service, being a prudent man, it is to him to proceed with in the time before the appropriate forum against his grievance.  Hence latches happened from complainant to file the complaint within time cannot be condoned since it is highly belated and no reasonable grounds stated to condone the delay of 356 day.  Therefore we do not find the reasons put forth by the complainant as convincing so as to condone the delay in question. Complainant himself is to be held responsible for this much belated action.  We therefore do not find any justification for condonation of delay of 356 day in filing this complaint.  Hence this case hits limitation period and is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, the petition filed by OPs to hear the question of maintainability is allowed and hence this complaint is dismissed.

      Sd/                                                                                    Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                           MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Senior Superintendent