State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Baikunthanath Sahoo vs 1.Indian Railway Catering Of Tourism ... on 5 January, 2023
BEFORE THE TELANGANA
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTEs
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
AGAINST FA.NO.317 OF 2017
ORDERSs IN CC.No.57 2015, DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION-III,OFHYDERABAD
Between:
Baikunthanath Sahoo,
S/o.Bhagaban Sahoo,
Aged 48 years, R/o.Flat No.202,
S.S.Prestige No.2-2-1121/4,
New Nallakunta,'Hyderabad.
Presently R/o.Flat No.306,
Satyam Heights, Plot No.81,
Sector-19, Kamothe,
Dist.Riagarh (Navi Mumbai)
Maharashtra.
2. Smt.Sasmita Sahoo,
W/o.Baikunthanath Sahoo,
Aged 39 years, R/o.Flat No.202,
S.S.Prestige H.No.2-2-1121/4,
New Nallakunta.
PresentlyR/o.Flat No.306,
Satyam Heights, Plot No.81,
Sector-19, Kamothe,
Dist.Riagarh (Navi Mumbai)
Maharashtra.
And Appellants/Complainants
1. Indian
Railway Catering of
Corporation Limited (IRCTC)Tourism
Represented by its Group General Manager,
II Floor, Amsri
Classic, S.D.Road,
Secunderabad - 500003.
2. The South Central
Railway
Represented by its Chief Commercial
Manager, Headquarters Office
Commercial (Catering)s/Branch
Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad -500 071.
3. Indian Railway Catering of Tourism
Corporation Limited (IRCTC) represented
By its Group General Manager,
9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Builidng,
16, Parliament Street,
New Delhi - 110001.
4. The South Central Railway
Represented by its General Manager,
Headquarters Office
Rail-Nilayam,
Secunderabad - 500 071.
Respondents/Opp.Parties
Rao
Counsel for the Appellants/Complainants: M/s.K.Narayana
Counsel for the Respondents/Opp.Parties: Sri K.Srinivasa Rao-R18 R2
Notice served R3 & R4
QUORAM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...LADY MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ******* Order: (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon'ble Lady Member)
1. This appeal is filed U/s. 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dated 10.12.2015 of the District Consumer Commission-lll, Hyderabad, made in CC.No.57/2015. The Appellants are the Complainants and the Respondents are the Opposite Parties in CC.No.57/2015.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Complainants reserved their train tickets bearing PNR No.4245741802 to travel by Duronto Express on 05. 10.2012 from Secunderabad to Visakhapatnam. The date of journey is 10.10.2012. It is the Complainant's case that when he booked the tickets online via the IRTC website, he has to exercise the compulsory option for selecting the choice of food. Accordingly, he opted for vegetarian food and this allowed him to proceed further on the website to book his ticket.
4. It is submitted that service charge of Rs.20/- was collected for additional services including food option etc., provided by IRTC.
e Complainants claim that they were not provided with any food 3 or drinking that due to O n this non-stop train. It is alleged On-availability of food and water, he suffered greaty and a letter to CgOng treatment for gastric problem. He addressed ue a General Manager, South Central Railway explaining the orara and damage undergone. The present complaint is filed alleging enCiency in service against the Opposite Parties since they have 1ailed to test the software before implementing it.
5. The Opposite Party No.1 & 3 filed their written version Submitting that they are a public sector unit and facilitate e booking and also levy a nominal service charge for this. They have no role in deciding the confirmation of tickets, change of status, roviding food and other facilities. This is the concern of the z0nal railway authorities.
6 Admittedly, the Complainant booked an e-ticket for two passengers on 10. 10.2012 and paid a sum of Rs.2,480/-. He also paid Rs.20/- towards service charge. Out of the two tickets, one was cancelled on 08.12.2012 and amount refunded.
7. The e-ticket categorically mentions that food charges are not included in the fare. With the above contentions, they deny any deficiency in service and plead dismissal of the case.
8. The Opposite Parties 2 & 4 filed their written version stating that the second Complainant was not a passenger since her ticket was cancelled and hence, is barred from filing the present complaint. For any recovery from the Railways, the Complainant should give notice U/s.80 of CPC. It is further argued that the complaint is barred by limitation since the date of travel was 10.10.2012 and the complaint was filed in the year 2015.
9. Wide publicity was given through the media regarding the non-availability of the pantry car in the Duronto Express. Since there was never any pantry car service from the time of introduction of the train, the Complainant has filed this frivolous complaint which deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
10. Before the District Porum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.Al to A20 are marked. On behalf of the Opposite Parties, evidence affidavit filed. No documents are marked on their behalf.
11. The District Forum after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, dismissed the complaint. A Sum ol Rs.2,000/- is imposcd as cxcmplary costs to the Complainant payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
12. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the Appellants/Complainants filed the appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:
The Forum below failed to see that the Appellant No.1 is a consumer since he paid charges of Rs.20/- over and above the train fare.
The Appellant could not book the ticket without the food exercising (veg/non-veg) option. Since its information meant availability of food, there is deficiency in service on the of the part Respondents for providing wrong information. The Forum below failed to consider Ex.A1 and A2 which has caused great inconvenience and damage to the Appellant.
13. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what reliefP
14. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
15. The main contention of the the ticket in the train bearing No.22204 Appellant/Complainant is that could not be booked in the website without exercising the option for food (veg/non-veg). It was CXercising this option, the ticket was booked On 05.10.2012 for the journey on 10.10.2012. He is relying -
C
CIEctronic reservation o
slip to support his grievance that u c O0a Respondents/Opposite Parties failed to provide him the facility of being available on the train.
For this grave deliciency OCTVIce, he has suffered immense health problems. The Foru DElow, he urges has not considered the material on record and erred in dismissing his complaint by imposing costs.
16. We have carefully perused the material on record and special relerence is made to Ex.A2
-IRCTCs e-Ticketing Service Electronic Reservation Slip (Personal User).
tis very clearly mentioned # FOOD CHARGES NOT INCLUDED
17. The Respondents/Opposite Parties have submitted that the Appellant/Complainant is well aware of the train's schedule and facilities. It is the responsibility of the passenger to take care of his/her requirements. In the instant case, the Appellant/Complainant claims that he is suffering from gastric issues and undergoing treatment. When he is aware of his health problems, he should have the innate sense to take better care of his needs rather than blaming the Respondents/Opposite Parties for non-availability of food and water on the train.
18. This particular train bearing No.22204/VSKP Duronto isa premium train whose running is prioritized and as per the railway rules-Indian Railways will provide food only if the trains are very delayed unless there is a pantry car facility available. It is pertinent to mention that the Respondents/Opposite Parties have submitted that on this particular train there was no pantry car or catering services available.
619. The District Forum has discussed all these issues in the right perspective and dismissed the complaint as frivolous and vexatious. We see no reason to interferc with the well reasoned order and the same is confirmed.
20. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.