State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Zonal Railway Manager vs Sh. Brijgopal Shukla on 20 February, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 100 / 2011
1. Divisional Railway Manager
Moradabad Division, Northern Railway, Moradabad
2. Railway Station Master/Superintendent
Northern Railway, Jwalapur
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Brij Gopal Shukla
House No. 501/11/1 B.H.E.L., Ranipur, Jwalapur
.......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Ajay Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Sh. Sanjay Yadav, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 20/02/2017
ORDER
(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member:) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 136 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties- appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant, within a month from the date of order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant-Sh. Brij Gopal Shukla booked five railway tickets from Faizabad to Haridwar of train No. 3009 on 05.04.2009 for a sum of Rs. 1,114/-. All five tickets were confirmed in coach No. S5 seat Nos. 59 to 64. According to the complainant, when 2 he reached at Faizabad railway station with his family on 05.04.2009, he got information that the said train, in which the complainant and his family members were supposed to travel, has been diverted and this process has been followed from 24.01.2009 and complainant was advised to board a train from Lucknow to Haridwar. It was important for the complainant to reach Haridwar, so he hired a taxi from Faizabad to Lucknow and paid Rs. 2,000/-. He bought tickets and paid Rs. 846/- in cash for train No. 4265 Varanasi Express and reached Haridwar. The complainant wrote a letter dated 27.07.2009 to the Indian Railway, but he did not receive any reply from the side of Indian Railway Department as yet. The complainant obtained information through Right to Information, in which Railway Department has admitted that the Train No. 3009 Hawra-Dehradun run on 04.04.2009 via Sultanpur, whereas route was via Faizabad. Route of this train was diverted due to repair work and change of guarders at railway line between Zafrabad and Jaunpur. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The opposite parties have filed written statement and have pleaded that the para Nos. 1 to 8 are not admitted. In additional pleas, the opposite parties have pleaded that on every Sunday from 25.01.2009 to 24.05.2009 route of train No. 3009 and other trains were diverted due to repair works carried out on bridge No. 75 on Zafrabad to Jaunpur and it was published in various newspapers. According to the answering opposite parties it was mentioned at the time of reservation that route can be diverted due to unavoidable reasons. The complainant was intimated that he can board the same train from Lucknow or Sultanpur, for which the complainant can board train No. 1 L.B. at 10:23hours or train No. 3307 at 11:23hours, which were available at Faizabad railway station, so he can reach Lucknow railway station by 15:50hours and 14:50hours respectively. The complainant instead boarding above trains, deliberately hired a taxi as there was no need. According to the 3 Section 223 (I) read with Section 60 of the Railway Act, 1989 "when the train tracks are being repaired and due to repair work, route of the trains are diverted, the customers who had purchased tickets before any repair work on the route are permitted to travel from the shortest route via train and no extra fare has to be paid by the customers". The complainant was advised for the same. As per Section 213(14) "If there is any obstacle in the journey due to any repair work, customer can claim the entire amount of refund from the boarding station". But complainant neither contacted Station Master at Faizabad Railway Station, nor any application was made for refund of the fare. The complainant can ask for refund of fare within 30 days, but he did not do so. The answering opposite parties further pleaded that the cause of action arose at Faizabad railway station, therefore, the District Forum, Haridwar has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint. So that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before the District Forum, Haridwar. The Indian Railway Department has provided alternative services, which complainant denied. So there is no deficiency on the part of the answering opposite parties. The consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 03.12.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties- appellants filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard Sh. Ajay Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sh. Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for respondent. We have also perused the entire record of the District Forum as well as material placed on record.
6. In the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has discussed all the facts of written statement. Learned counsel for the appellants has 4 apprised this Commission that no territorial jurisdiction lies at District Forum, Haridwar. So the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7. As the appellants have stated in the written statement and as well as learned counsel for the appellants has also focused that the cause of action has arose at Faizabad railway station, so the District Forum, Haridwar has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. But from the perusal of the railway ticket (paper No. 5/2 on the District Forum's record), it is evident that the respondent had purchased this return ticket of Faizabad to Haridwar from Jwalapur railway station (Haridwar) as mentioned in the consumer complaint. Therefore, we are of the view that the District Forum, Haridwar was having jurisdiction to hear and decide the consumer complaint, since the cause of action has arose within the territory of Haridwar. After perusal of the documents filed by both the parties, it is very much clear that the complainant- respondent's five railway tickets were confirmed from Faizabad to Haridwar in train No. 3009 on 05.04.2009. When the respondent reached at Faizabad railway station, he came to know that the said train in which respondent and his family members were supposed to travel was not coming to Faizabad railway station, as repair works were carried out on the said railway track. Railway Department had already published news in various newspapers for train diversions (paper No. 16/4 on the District Forum's record). According to the written statement filed by the appellants, it is clear that the appellants had provided alternative services for the passengers of train No. 3009 at Faizabad railway station to reach Lucknow railway station without any extra fare, from where the respondent could board the train for which his tickets were confirmed. Instead of boarding the said train, respondent hired a taxi for his own convenience. Respondent could claim for refund of his fare within a period of 30 days, but he did not adopt the procedure for refund of the fare.
58. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint, per impugned order, which cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is fit to be allowed.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 136 of 2010 is dismissed. No order as to costs. The statutory amount deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal be released in appellants' favour.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)