Haryana

Panchkula

CC/287/2016

NIRMAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIAN RAIL - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

30 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

Mr. Nirmal Singh through his son Sh. Gursewak Singh R/o Street No. 1, Krishna Colony Near Radha Krishan Mandir, Tipra, PO Kalka, District Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

Indian Rail, Northern Railway, Division Ambala through Head of Railway Station, Kalka

                                                                             ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

For the Parties:     Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate for complainant. 

Ms. Veena Bhutani, Advocate for OP.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the Ops with the averments that he booked a ticket online through ITCTC e-Ticketing Service through computerized Electronic Reservation Slip for undertaking journey in Sleeper and the tickets issued vide PNR no. # 2116509361 on March 26, 2016 for the journey, boarding from Kalka up to Bathinda on the train number/name 14887/KLK BME Express with booking status as confirmed. The ticket was booked for the Senior Citizen passengers namely Nirmal Singh (complainant) and Harbhajan Kaur with reservation status as confirmed and berth numbers reserved were S2/17/LOWER & S2/20/LOWER respectively for the journey starting on April 2, 2016. The scheduled departure was at 21:30 hours and the scheduled arrival at Bathinda was on April 3, 2016 at 03:35 hours. Moreover, it is alleged that the cost of the said ticket was Rs. 267.9/- which includes IRCTC service charges. On the day of journey on April 2, 2016 at 21:30 hours, complainant misplaced the e-Ticket whereas the name was clearly displayed on the chart pasted on the coach by the Rail authority. Accordingly, the senior Citizen passengers (complainant) occupied the berth booked on their name. The complainant was carrying valid ID proof in original. Further, the complainant used feature phone and he was not familiar with phone to show electronic reservation slip. The complainant informed his son Gursewak Singh about the whole incident. An intimation of the incident sent across to the Indian Railway on their official customer care Mail id
2. On notice, the OP appeared on 30.11.2016 and the case was adjourned to 27.12.2016 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 27.12.2016, learned counsel for OP has filed an application for dismissal of complaint and the case was adjourned to 11.01.2017 for filing reply of application as well as consideration. On 11.01.2017, the counsel for the complainant appeared and filed vakalatnama and sought time for filing reply to the application and the case was adjourned to 30.01.2017 for filing reply to the application for dismissal of complaint and for consideration.
3. Reply to the application for dismissal of complaint filed by the counsel for the complainant in which he states that this application is not maintainable and this Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint. Arguments on the application heard.
4. The brief point that falls for consideration is whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On the point of jurisdiction of this Forum it is brought to our notice that a latest judgment has been passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab titled as “Indian Railways & Others Versus Tejinder Singh decided on 27.09.2016. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads thus:

“8. From perusal of above referred authorities, we find that Consumer Protection Act was enacted by legislature in the year 1986, whereas Railway Claims Tribunal was enacted by legislature thereafter in the year 1987 Section 28 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 is non-obstante in nature. It makes it clear that provisions of above Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act Legislature was aware of provision of CP Act 1986, when it enacted above Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 it introduced Section 28 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act with specific aim to make it non-obsante clause in nature Section 15 of Railway Acts bars the jurisdiction of any other court or authorities. Section 13 of the Act makes it clear that claim lies before Railway Claim Tribunal only with regard to for refund of fares or part thereof. The matter, in dispute pertains to refund of the amount, alleged to have been paid by complainant, whereas version of Ops now appellants is that the TTE was found in possession of excess of government cash on that day during the course of raid conducted by the officials of Northern Railway Vigilance. We find that District Forum has not adverted to the crux of the matter and wrongly observed that it has jurisdiction to try the case. We, thus, hold that in view of Sections 13, 15 and 28 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is excluded, because Section 28 of the Act has overriding effect over any other law Section 3 of CP Act cannot supersede the jurisdiction of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, in view of Section 28 of the Act, which was enacted subsequently by the Parliament than CP Act 1986.

9.       As a corollary of our above discussion order passed by District Forum, Ludhiana holding that District Forum is competent to decide the matter is erroneous and is ordered to be reversed in this appeal. Accordingly, we accept the appeal of the appellants and set aside the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 08.07.2014 resulting into dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The complainant shall be at liberty to seek his remedy before competent forum under law”.

5. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves dismissal. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order to costs.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

Announced

30.01.2017                    ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                                      MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT