National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dharm Prakash Verma vs Chairman, Railway Board on 31 October, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.2309 OF 2013 (From the order dated 8.5.2013 in Appeal No.215/2009 of the Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun) Dharm Prakash Verma ... Petitioner S/o Late Dr. S.N. Verma R/o 304, Doon Royal Apartment Ashwini Enclave, Shimla Bypaas Road Dehradun-248171 Uttarakhand Versus Chairman, Railway Board ....... Respondent Rail Bhawan Ministry of Railway New Delhi - 110001 BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR.SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : In person Pronounced on : 31st October, 2014 ORDER
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the original complainant in this case against the order dated 8.5.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun in F.A. No.215 of 2009 whereby the State Commission upheld the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun dismissing the consumer complaint No.183 of 2008 filed by the petitioner and dismissed his appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the factual matrix of this case are that on 16.10.2006, the complainant had booked four railway tickets for journey from Dehradun to Allahabad (Train No.4114 with date of journey as 17.10.2006) and Allahabad to Rewa (Train No.2427 with date of journey as 18.10.2006) and the return ticket from Rewa to New Delhi and New Delhi to Dehradun. On 17.10.2006, when the complainant reached the railway station at Dehradun, he found that his ticket was not confirmed and his name was mentioned in the waiting list. As per the allegation, the TTE did not allot reserved berth to him in the coach although the complainant had reserved Sleeper Class ticket from Dehradun to Allahabad. According to the complainant, the train left the Dehradun Station at 1.35 p.m. on 17.10.2006 and reached Allahabad at about 10.30 a.m. on 18.10.2006, i.e., about 2 hours late. The complainant further alleged that the journey from Allahabad to Rewa was uncomfortable because even though it was a Superfast Train, there was no pantry car nor did he get any food in the train. It was also mentioned that the Superfast Train stopped at many unscheduled small stations moving with a slow speed of 32 km per hour and covered the distance of 227 kms in about 7 and a half hours. According to the complainant, his return journey was also full of difficulties because he missed his train due to fault of the opposite party. He, therefore, registered complaint with TTE and the Railway officials at S.S. Office, New Delhi but there was no action and instead of help, it was alleged that the officials of the Railway misbehaved with him thereby violating the rules. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs/respondents, he filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and sought reliefs as mentioned in his complaint.
3. On notice, the complaint was contested by the opposite party which filed a detailed reply giving information about the relevant rules and regulations as well as the procedure followed by the Railways in such cases. On appraisal of the issues raised and the evidence placed on record by the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 22.10.2009 holding that in the circumstances of this case, there was no deficiency or error in the service by the OPs. Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing No.215 of 2009 before the State Commission which was also dismissed by the State Commission by its impugned order which is now under challenge through the present petition.
4. We have heard the petitioner who has appeared in person to plead his case and have also perused the record.
5. We may note that the District Forum has considered each of the allegations made by the complainant in the light of point-wise rebuttal filed by the Railway authorities through their reply and has reached the conclusion that in the given circumstances of this case, there was no case of deficiency or error in service on the part of the OPs and as such the question of grant of any compensation to the petitioner did not arise. The District Forum has done so by passing a detailed and speaking order. The State Commission has confirmed the finding of the District Forum and hence dismissed the appeal. The State Commission in its impugned order has not only considered the appeal of the petitioner in the light of the rules and regulations of the Railway but has also examined the judgements relied upon by the petitioner in support of his allegations in the complaint. Nothing has been produced or placed by the petitioner before us which would justify our taking a different view It has to be appreciated that section 21 (b) confers very limited powers on this Commission while exercising our revisional jurisdiction and we can interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission only if it has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. We have not come across any such illegality or infirmity which would justify our interference with the impugned order. We, therefore, dismiss this meritless revision petition but with no order as to costs.
Sd/-....
(AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-.
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER SS/