Haryana

Karnal

CC/1/2019

Ekta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Station Master Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Arora

29 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 01 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.01.01.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 29.01.2020

 

Ekta wife of Shri Yash Pal Chhabra, resident of Moti Nagar, Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Station Master Northern Railway, Karnal.

                                                                         …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri R.K. Arora Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Subhash Chander Advocate for opposite party.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had booked a ticket in old Delhi Amb Andaura Himachal Express, Train no.14553, coach no.B1 seat no.44 on 17.12.2018, amounting to Rs.970/- from Karnal to Nangal Dam vide ticket no.16304054.  On 17.12.2018 the complainant approached at the railway station Karnal before arriving the train. The Train reached at the railway station at 01.04 a.m. and departure from the Karnal Railway Station 01.06 a.m. The complainant tried to open the door of the coach no.B1 but the official of the railway department has not opened the door and due to this reason the complainant could not enter into the coach no.B1 and at about 1.06 a.m. the train departure from the railway station. Thereafter, complainant approached to the station master and made the complaint no.40 in writing to the station master Railway Station Karnal. Thereafter, complainant with great difficulty hired a taxi bearing no.HR-05AY-7460 in a higher rate because there was urgent for the complainant to reach Nangal Dam. After coming from Nangal Dam the complainant approached in the office of the OP and requested to return the ticket amount but official of the OP lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly flatly refused to refund the same. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, Learned counsel of OP appeared and filed written statement without any signature of the party, as per order 6 Rule 14 of CPC, every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader. Order 6 Rule 14 of CPC reads as under:-

Pleading to be signed- Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any)

Provided that where a party pleading, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defect on his behalf.

In view of order 6 Rule 14 of CPC every pleading shall be signed by the parties but in the present case, written version filed by the learned counsel of OP no.1 is not signed by the party thus same cannot be considered.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 18.09.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Narinder Singh Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 13.01.2020.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Admittedly, complainant booked ticket in old Delhi Ambala Andaura Himachal Express, Train on 17.12.2018, amounting to Rs.970/- from Karnal to Nagal Dam, vide ticket Ex.C1. As per the version of the complainant when she tried to open the door of the coach n o.B1 but the official of the OP did not open the door and due to this reason she could not enter in the coach no.B1. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP and made a complaint Ex.C6 in writing. Complainant hired a taxi at a higher rate because there was urgency to reach at Nangal Dam. These facts have been proved from the toll tax receipt Ex.C7. The complainant sought information through RTI from the OP( Ex.C3 to Ex.C5) but no response was given by the OP.

7.             On the other hand, the version of the OP is that prior to filing the complaint no mandatory legal notice was ever served upon the OP. Moreover, in the entire complaint, there is no allegation against the OP. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.             The written version filed by the OP does not bear signatures of the OP and same was filed by its counsel. As per order 6 Rule 14 CPC every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader. Since the written statement and reply has not been signed by the party itself, the same cannot be considered. When the pleading of the OP cannot be considered, therefore, its evidence also, cannot be considered.

9.             Thus, the version of the complainant has gone unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. As per the complainant, she has hired taxi from Karnal to Nangal Dam but no bill has been placed on record with regard to making payment to the driver of the taxi. However, she placed on record receipts of toll tax Ex.C7 which proves the fact that she has hired taxi in emergency in order to reach at Nangal Dam and it can be presumed that she has paid fare for hiring taxi. In these circumstances, without the receipt of the bill for hiring taxi, it is justified for the complainant to grantazg Rs.3000/- for making payment for hiring taxi. In view of facts and circumstances mentioned above, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

10.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.970/- to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.3000/- taxi charges. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:29.01.2020

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                         Member