Orissa

Rayagada

CC/34/2020

Sri Kosali Gantayat - Complainant(s)

Versus

The DRM East Cost Railway - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     34      / 2020.                              Date.      8    . 4. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri Kosali  Gantayat, Address:  At: Gajapati Nagar, 9^th. lane, Po:Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam, State: Odisha, AT Present residing  at Rayagada  Town, Po/Dist:RayagadaPin No. 765  001. Cell No.8249162874                                               …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Divisional  Railway  Manager, East Coast  Railway,  At/Po/Dist: Vizag,  State: Andhrapradesh.

2.The   Zonal  Manager, East Coast  Railway, At: Chandrasekharpur, Po: Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khurda, State:Odisha.

3.The Manager, Indian  Railway Catering  and  Tourism  Corporation  Ltd.,  11^th. Floor,  B-148, Statesman House,  Barakhamba   Road,  New Delhi -  110001.. … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.Ps 1 & 2   :- Sri  N.N. Panda Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P.No. 3:- None.

ORDER.

            The present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant  alleging deficiency in service  against the afore said O.Ps for non  refund of  Railway ticket amount after cancellation of  train.  The brief facts  of the case are summarized  here  under.                                                                                

That on Dt.  18^th, December, 2019  the complainant along with  his family members 3 others SilpaGantayat, Sri P.K.Gantayat,  Sri  A.K.Sarangi  had  booked  railway ticket  through IRCTCs   e –ticketing service  and  booked  Railway  ticket   from   Bengaluru Cant (BNC)   up to   Rayagada  date of journey  i.e. Dt.   15.03.2020  for4  persons bearing PNR No. 4721392957. But  on  Dt. 15.3.2020 the  train No.80636 was  cancelled  which was best  known  to you. The  Station Manager, East Coast Raialway, Rayagada(Odisha) had issued certificate where in  he had  described  that the train No. 80636/BNL/HTE/SUVIDHA Express was not on run and has not arrived at Rayagada station on Dt. 16.3.2020 due to cancellation from the originating station  as per the Station record and he was told the  train  fare will be refunded  to the  passengers  as  per rule and  will be   credited  in  the  respective  S.B. account of the  passenger.  But  till date the complainant  neither  received the train fare a sum of Rs.10,755.40 from the  O.Ps. nor received  any  response.  Hence this case filed before the  forum

            On being noticed the O.P. No.1 & 2  filed written version through their learned counsel and submitted that  the case  is not maintainable  before the forum  and lies with in the  Railway Claims Tribunal , 1987 under Section  13(1)  (b) r/w section – 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.  The sub-clause (b) of Section 13(1) of the Act clearly says that all claims regarding  refund of fare or  part thereof are only maintainable before the Railway Claims Tribuanal and  not before  the consumer forum.  Hence  the trial of such case by the consumer forum or any other authority or court is barred under section-15 of the  R.C.T Act, 1987 which is an overriding effect under section -28 of the said Act. The O.P No. 1 & 2 cited  a lot of citations  in  their written version  to defend the case.   The  O.Ps No.1 & 2 have no role in the booking of tickets or refund  of  money  to the complainant. So the  O.Ps No.1 & 2  prays the District Commission to exclude them from the petition and direct the complainant to file a proper complaint adding the parties  properly.

The O.Ps  1 & 2  appeared and filed their written version.  Arguments from the  learned counsel for  the    O.Ps 1 & 2  and from the  complainant heard.  Perused the record, documents, written argument,  citations   filed by the parties. 

The  parties  are   vehemently advanced their  arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS.

            During the course of hearing the  complainant appeared before the District Commission in person and filed memo submitted that after filing of C.C. case before the District Commission the O.P. No.3  (IRCTC) had credited the ticket amount in the S.B. of the  complainant and he is not interested to proceed the case further and prays the District Commission  to close the proceeding against the O.Ps for the best interest of justice.

.           We observed  after filing of the case before  the District Commission  the O.P No.3 (IRCTC) had   refunded  the ticket amount to the complainant  which is admitted by the complainant.  We  find   there is no  deficiency  in service  on the part of the O.P. No.3 (IRCTC).

Verified the Memo and  relevant documents  filed  by  the complainant.  Memo is allowed.  The complainant had filed  the memo with his full and final settlement of their claims with out any  protest. The complainant prays  the  District  Commission  to close  the case.

                Considering the exigencies of the case  accordingly the present C.C. case No.  34 of 2020  is   hereby closed & O.Ps are  wriggled out of the liability  of the case .

 

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed

ORDER.

            In  resultant    the complaint petition is dismissed. on contest  against the O.Ps No.1 & 2 .. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

   Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost.

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this       8th   Day of     April,,   2021.

 

Member.                                                             President