State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K.L.Verma S/O Godhan Lal Verama vs I.R.C.R.T.C. on 26 May, 2016
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 823/2015 K.L.Verma s/o Shri Govardhan Lal Verma r/o 69, Ambedkar Nagar, Jaipur. Vs. Indian Railway Cattering & Tourism Corporation, 708, Crystal Mall, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Bani Park,Jaipur through Regional Manager & ors. APPEAL NO: 786/2015 Indian Railway Cattering & Tourism Corporation, 708, Crystal Mall, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Bani Park,Jaipur through Regional Manager & ors. Vs. K.L.Verma s/o Shri Govardhan Lal Verma r/o 69, Ambedkar Nagar, Jaipur. Date of Order 26.5.2016 2 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member
Mr. Sudhir Kumar counsel for the appellant-complainant Mr.P.C.Sharma counsel for the respondents IRCTC BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
Both these appeals are initiated against the common order hence, are decided by this common judgment.
The consumer has preferred this appeal that no compensation has been allowed for other family members, i.e. wife, cousin brother and brother's wife who have also suffered hence, suitable compensation should have been allowed under section 14 (1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act.
Per contra the contention of the service provider company is that earlier on the same facts a complaint has been filed by M.R.Verma complaint no. 801/2013 which was dismissed on merit and again on same facts this second complaint has been 3 filed which is not maintainable. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the service provider company and the complaint should have been rejected.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.
The complainant has come with a case that no compensation has been allowed for their family members and reliance has been placed on section 14 (1) (hb) which reads as follows:
" Section 14 Finding of the District Forum (1) If after the proceeding conducted under sec. 13 the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more that the following things,merely:-
(hb) to pay such sum as may be determined by it, if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently."4
The plain reading of the above clearly speaks that the provision applies to the eventualities where the consumers could not be identified. Here in the present case the complainant-appellant has come with a case that consumers are clearly ascertainable hence, no relief could be granted under section 14 (1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act. The consumer has placed reliance on I (2006) CPJ 521 Hotel Nyay Mandir Vs. Ishwarlal Jinabhai Desai where a fine distinction has been explained under section 12 (1) (c) and 14 (1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act where the consumers are definite then after seeking permission a complaint under representative capacity could be filed but section 14 (1) (hb) would attract only when large body of consumers are effected who could not be ascertained which is not the case here. Hence, the contention of the appellant is not sustainable and so also the appeal.
The consumer has contended that he took ticket in Dakshin Bharat Darshan Yatra and there is no dispute about the same and terms and conditions are placed on record as Ex. 2. The first contention of the appellant-complainant is that the journey was to be started on 2.30 p.m. but it was started on 6.30 p.m.. Admittedly journey was to be started by train and when 5 train was delayed it cannot be said to be deficiency of service on the part of the respondent service provider company. Further more it has been stated that at Shirdi they have been lodged in Dharamshala but this also cannot be said to be deficiency in service as Ex.2 condition clearly speaks that at the destinations Dharamshala accommodation (dormitory/hall ) will be provided and bed rolls will be provided. The complainant has come with a case that they have been lodged in tents but same has not been pleaded and photographs presented also could not confirm the same. For other contention that in Tirupati they have been forced to lodge in insufficient accommodation or in Kanyakumari the hotels were get vacated at 3.00 p.m. or bathrooms were out of service are not supported by any evidence. Immediately no such complaint has been lodged with the service provider company hence, complainant could not prove any deficiency of service on the part of respondent service provider company and further more it could also be noted that earlier vide order dated 18.3.2015 on the same grounds complaint was dismissed. Hence, there was no occasion for the District Forum to frame another view. In view of the above, the appeal of the service provider company is worth acceptance.
6The appeal of consumer is dismissed and the appeal of service provider company is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 4.6.2015 is set aside.
(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta ) Member President nm