State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K. Rangnathan vs South Central Eastern Railway on 13 February, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/12/579
Instituted on : 17.10.2012
K. Rangnathan, S/o Shri M. Krishnamurty,
R/o : M.I.G. 54, Housing Board Colony,
Tatibandh,
Raipur (C.G.) ..... Appellant.
Vs
South Central Eastern Railway,
Through : Manager, W.R.S. Colony,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) .... Respondent.
PRESENT :
HONʹBLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri H.N. Das, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL) DATED : 13/02/2013 PER :‐ HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT The complaint of the appellant herein, against the respondent herein/ South Central Eastern Railway, has been dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), vide order dated 29.09.2012, passed in Complaint Case No.186/2011 on the two grounds, // {PAGE } // firstly that complainant had failed to show identity proof to the T.C. at the time of journey and secondly that booking agent, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation (hereinafter called "IRCTC" in short), was not made a party in the case, which was necessary party.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that complainant being a senior citizen, booked a railway ticket for journey from Lokmanya Terminal, Mumbai to Raipur under Tatkal quota in 2nd AC by booking a ticket through internet on payment of Rs.1,662/‐. A confirmed ticket was provided to him and berth No.0031 of Coach A‐1 was shown in the ticket as allotted to him. When he boarded the train on the date of journey, then T.T.I. expressed his inability to provide that berth to the complainant and allotted another berth on another ticket to the complainant after recovery of amount of fine. When protested, then T.T.I. misbehaved the complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the complaint was filed before the District Forum.
3. The allegations of the complainant were refuted by the respondent on the saying that ticket was issued through IRCTC, over which the O.P./respondent was having no authority and unless that Corporation is made party, the complaint is not maintainable. This objection was also raised whether the amount of ticket was actually // {PAGE } // deposited in the account of Railway or not, has also not been shown by the complainant.
4. Learned District Forum, agreed with the defence of the respondent and dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
5. After having heard the arguments advanced by both parties and having gone through the record of the case, we are of the view that impugned order of the District Forum, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
6. The written version submitted by the respondent before the District Forum and the affidavit of Shri J.N. Sabat, Divisional Commercial Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Raipur, nowhere says that under what circumstances, the appellant/complainant was not permitted by the concerning T.T.I. to occupy the berth, which was allotted to him by a confirmed ticket. Affidavit of the concerning T.T.I. was also not filed before the District Forum to explain as to on what circumstances he had not permitted the complainant to occupy that berth. It is nobody's case that identity proof was demanded and was not shown by the appellant/complainant. It is also nobody's case that IRCTC had not deposited the amount of fare in the account of the respondent/Railway. Thus, there was no evidence on the part of the respondent/Railway to // {PAGE } // refute the allegations leveled in the complaint. Important evidence is lacking on behalf of the respondent/Railway and even then, the District Forum has unnecessarily dismissed the complaint. The ticket, copy of which has been filed by the appellant/complainant before the District Forum shows that he was in possession of a confirmed ticket, issued through IRCTC and IRCTC recovered service charges also for that service. The hand made tickets provided by the T.T.I. to the appellant/complainant have also been filed to show that fare of Rs.1,035/‐ was paid and fine of Rs.575/‐ was also paid by the complainant to the concerning T.T.I. Thus, it was for the concerning T.T.I. to show as to on what circumstances, he has refused to provide seat on the basis of confirmed ticketing service electronic reservation slip to the complainant and had issued fresh tickets for another berth.
7. So far as question as to whether IRCTC is necessary party or not in the complaint case, it is left with the discretion of the appellant/complainant whether he wishes to add name of such Corporation as party in the complaint, but the complaint could have very well be decided in absence of IRCTC also, because its job was only to book railway ticket through internet, which had been successfully performed by it. The appellant/complainant was not having any grievance in respect of services provided by IRCTC. So far as the // {PAGE } // appellant/complainant is concerned, it was not necessary for him to make IRCTC a party in the complaint case. The grievances of the appellant/complainant were only against the respondent/Railway and the respondent/Railway is required to face the allegations of the appellant/complainant by leading cogent evidence and reliable documentary or oral evidence, which has not at all been filed.
8. In view of aforesaid, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to provide opportunity to the respondent to file documentary and oral evidence and if necessary then grant permission to amend the written version. The appellant/complainant may also be given opportunity to implead IRCTC as party in the complaint case, if he so wishes. After doing all these exercises, the matter be decided afresh on merits within a period of 60 days from receipt of it's record. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, on 11.03.2013.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K.Patil) President Member Member /02/2013 /02/2013 /02/2013