State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Qimti Lal Jain vs Union Of India on 11 October, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.36 of 2017
Date of institution : 16.01.2017.
Date of reserved : 25.09.2017.
Date of decision : 11.10.2017
Qimti Lal Jain S/o Sh.Ram Lal Jain aged 60 years, resident of
Kothi No.27-28, Guru Nanak Nirankari Colony, Sunder Nagar,
Ludhiana.
....Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Railways 543, Rail Board, Raisina
Road, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New
Delhi.
3. Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Ludhiana.
4. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway Ferozepur
Division, Ferozepur.
...Respondents/Opposite parties.
First Appeal against the order dated
28.10.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Qimti Lal Jain, in person For the respondents : Sh.Karamjit Verma, Advocate MRS. KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant to challenge therein order dated 28.10.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (for short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by First Appeal No.36 of 2016 2 appellant/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), was dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred to, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
Facts of the Complaint
3. The factual matrix of the matter in brief, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is a senior citizen residing at Ludhiana and undertook a train journey in train number 12625, dated 17.06.2014 from Coimbatore Jn to Ludhiana Jn via New Delhi, bearing ticket No.76145805, PNR No.426-2639623 in AC No.3 Tier, having his seat No.1 in B4 Coach. Upon reaching New Delhi Railway Station on 19.06.2014, he suffered a sunstroke attack resulting in fever at 103°C and some other p roblems, due to which he was left with no option except to get down from the train. He got his treatment from doctors at New Delhi and on 20.06.2014 he again boarded Train No.12483 from New Delhi to Ludhiana in AC 3 Tier compartment. He was offered side berth No.24 in the AC 3 Tier compartment. The passenger of seat No.23 also accommodated him, as he shifted to another seat. Passenger of seat No.29, who was a doctor by profession, gave further treatment to him in the compartment itself and was also helped by some other passengers. The destination of the complainant was more than 2921 KMs and as such, he required accommodation in the compartment, as also he was unwell. He alleged that a Sikh Gentleman T.T.E. came to the compartment to inspect his ticket First Appeal No.36 of 2016 3 and after checking, he was told that he would not be able to travel in that AC 3 Tier compartment. He was pushed by the said TTE from the AC Coach and his ticket was marked S4 claiming that it was the obligation of the TTE to allow him in the sleeper coach. There were other passengers too with general tickets, who were adjusted and allowed to sit in the AC compartment. He further alleged that the behavior of the said Sikh Gentleman TTE, who is acting on behalf of OPs, had not only misbehaved with him, was discourteous and also used filthy language against him. So, by pleading deficiency on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed the present complaint before the District Forum and prayed for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation of Rs.11,000/-. Defence of the Opposite Parties
4. Upon notice, OPs No.1,2,3&4 filed their joint written reply to the complaint raising preliminary objections interalia on the ground that the present complaint is not maintainable as deficiency on the part of OPs was not there and that the complainant was in a habit of raising hue and cry on petty matters trying to blackmail the officials of OPs. Similar complaint of the complainant was pending before the District Forum on another issue regarding travel by him in the train on false facts. It was denied that the complainant suffered sunstroke resulting in fever and other problems. However, it was admitted that the complainant was having a railway ticket from Coimbatore to Ludhiana via New Delhi. It was alleged that the complainant had not disclosed the name of the doctors from whom he got the First Appeal No.36 of 2016 4 treatment. It was admitted that on 20.06.2014, the complainant again boarded the train from New Delhi to Ludhiana. There was no seat in 3 Tier AC compartment and T.T.E. rightly obliged the complainant by allowing him the seat in S4 coach. Since there is no provision under the Railway Laws to accommodate the passenger against the seat of other co-passengers, hence, the complainant was not entitled to continue his journey in AC 3 Tier. It was denied that the passenger of seat No.29 was a doctor as the name of the said passenger was not disclosed by the complainant. Allegations of misbehavior were denied and rather it was claimed that complainant himself was guilty of misbehavior and had misused the rendered services. Admittedly, the complainant had sent the complaint, but same was duly replied vide letter No.1090 dated 01.10.2014. Each and every other averment of the complaint was denied.
Finding of the District Forum
5. Both the parties produced their evidence in support of their averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the complaint of the complainant, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
Contentions of the Parties
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently contended that the District Forum while dismissing the First Appeal No.36 of 2016 5 complaint, failed to consider the right of the appellant/complainant and atrocities done by the officials of the respondents resulting into harassment during the journey. It was averred that the appellant/complainant had boarded the train as per rules and there was no violation thereof on his part rather the official of the respondents has disobeyed the rules. The appellant has alleged that there were number of vacant seats against which the concerned T.T.E. had adjusted other passengers with ordinary tickets and that the respondents have never placed on record the chart of T.T.E. showing the exact position of coach and that he could have charged extra fare for providing seat in Second A.C. Compartment. It was also alleged that as per the rules, the journey was braked as the train terminated at New Delhi Railway Station and the TTE could take the reservation charges. Also that the charges submitted by the T.T.E. on completion/booking of journey where the reservation/difference of fares is charged has not been presented before the District Forum which was necessary to establish the actual position of the coach. The complainant prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and appeal be accepted.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/OPs rebutted the averments made by the appellant/complainant and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant had filed the present complaint only to blackmail and harass the department officials and that the complainant was a regular, habitual litigant in habit of making hue and cry on petty First Appeal No.36 of 2016 6 matters. No document has been produced on record to show medical treatment undertaken by the complainant at New Delhi. The officials of the Railway have acted in line of duty as there was no seat in 3rd AC compartment and T.T.E. rightly obliged the complainant by allotting him the seat in coach S-4. There was no provision under the Railway Laws to have a seat on the basis of accommodation of other passengers. It was denied that the passenger of seat No.29 was a doctor since the complainant had not mentioned the name of that passenger. It was denied that the destination of the complainant was more than 2921 kms, as alleged, since the complainant started the journey on 20.06.2014 from Delhi to Ludhiana i.e. not more than 350 Kms. They have denied that the TTE misbehaved with the complainant as alleged rather the complainant himself was guilty of misbehaving and misusing the services rendered by the Railway Department. Other allegations were denied by the respondents/OPs and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Consideration of Contentions
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. On evaluation of the above contentions, we cannot comment on the exchange of verbal communication between two parties alleged to be defamatory qua each other. Admittedly, the appellant had boarded the train No.12483 from New Delhi to Ludhiana on 20.06.2014. Since there is no provision under the Railway Laws the TTE rightly adjusted the complainant and First Appeal No.36 of 2016 7 allotted him the seat in coach S4. In view of providing this accommodation to appellant, deficiency on the part of OPs certainly is not there and as such appeal is liable to be dismissed on merits.
11. We do not find force in the arguments raised by the complainant on his health issue in the said journey as the complainant has not placed on record the name of the treating doctor and no document has been placed on record to show that he had availed any treatment for his various health problems as alleged in the complaint.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 is affirmed and upheld.
13. The case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER October 11, 2017.
Lb/-