State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
D..R.M./Manager Mandal Railway vs Ajay Kumar Gupta on 20 September, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 200 / 2013
1. D.R.M. / Manager
Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Division
Northern Railway, Ambala
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar, T.T.E.
through Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Division
Northern Railway, Ambala
......Appellants / Opposite Parties
Versus
Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate
District and Sessions Court Premises
Roshnabad, District Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Parag Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Respondent present in person
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 20/09/2016
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 08.05.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 62 of 2008.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that on 02.09.2007, the complainant had gone to Bhatinda along with his son by Intercity Express in regard to some urgent work, from where he was returning to Haridwar on 05.09.2007 by Ganganagar Express. It was alleged that near Jagadhri Railway Station, Sh. Ashok Kumar, T.T.E. - opposite party No. 1 came in the coach and started checking 2 the tickets. The T.T.E. asked for the ticket from the complainant along with the ticket of his son, whereupon the complainant told that his son is aged about 4½ years', but the T.T.E. told that the complainant's son is aged 5½ years' and as per the rules of the Railway Department, ½ ticket would be applicable for complainant's son. The complainant gave Rs. 50/- to the T.T.E. towards charges of ½ ticket, but the T.T.E. did not issue any ticket. The T.T.E. asked the complainant as to how many sons he has, whereupon the complainant told that he has two sons and his elder son is Master Akshay and younger son is Master Lakshya. Upon inquiry, the complainant told the age of his sons to the T.T.E., whereafter the T.T.E. also imposed penalty of Rs. 250/- and wrongly entered the name of Master Akshay instead of Master Lakshya and by showing his age as 10 years', issued the receipt No. 770081 for sum of Rs. 300/- and handed over the same to the complainant. The complainant asked the T.T.E. to rectify the mistake, but the T.T.E. used abusive language against the complainant. The complainant issued a notice dated 17.09.2007 to the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 2 vide letter dated 26.10.2007 informed the complainant that the checking made by the T.T.E. was correct. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The appellants - opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on 05.09.2007, the complainant was travelling in train No. 4712 from Bhatinda to Haridwar along with one woman and two children and age of one of the children was 4-4½ years' and the age of the other child was 10-11 years'; that the complainant has wrongly alleged that he was travelling only with his one son aged 4-4½' years'; that the T.T.E. asked for the ticket of the elder son of the complainant aged 10-11 years' and while making the 3 ticket, the name of Master Akshay, elder son of the complainant, was rightly mentioned in the receipt; that the complainant has signed the receipt after reading and understanding the same and no objection was raised by the complainant at that time; that the T.T.E. has performed his duties and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum after perusal of the evidence on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 08.05.2013 and directed the appellant No. 1 - opposite party No. 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent - complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent - complainant in person and gone through the record.
6. The incident in question took place near Jagadhri Railway Station while the complainant was coming from Bhatinda to Haridwar by Ganganagar Express (train No. 4712). The complainant has impleaded Sh. Ashok Kumar, T.T.E., C/o Divisional Rail Manager, Ambala Division, Northern - Western Railway, District Ambala (Haryana) and D.R.M. / Manager, Divisional Rail Manager, Ambala Division, Northern - Western Railway, District Ambala (Haryana), as opposite parties to the consumer complaint. The perusal of the consumer complaint shows that the same is completely silent on the point of cause of action and there is no averment in the consumer complaint as to when and where the cause of action for filing the consumer complaint has arisen in favour of the complainant. The complainant has also not made any averment in the consumer complaint as to how the District Forum, Haridwar has territorial 4 jurisdiction in the matter and as to how the cause of action for filing the consumer complaint has arisen in his favour at Haridwar.
7. Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum and the same reads as under:
"11(2). A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution, or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."
8. As would be evident from the array of the opposite parties to the consumer complaint, the opposite parties impleaded by the complainant in the consumer complaint do not reside or carry on business at Haridwar and they carry on their work / duty at Ambala (Haryana) and have been impleaded as such by the complainant and 5 hence the consumer complaint was not at all maintainable before the District Forum, Haridwar. Since the District Forum, Haridwar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter and hence the consumer complaint was wrongly entertained and decided on merit by the District Forum and hence we need not make any comment upon the merits of the case.
9. The District Forum has not considered the territorial aspect of the matter and has erred in entertaining the consumer complaint and deciding the same on merit vide impugned order, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal is fit to be allowed.
10. Appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 08.05.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 62 of 2008 is dismissed, being not maintainable before the District Forum, Haridwar. However, the respondent - complainant would be at liberty to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The statutory amount of Rs. 12,500/- deposited by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal, be released in their favour. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA) K