State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Group General Manager, Irctc ... vs M.Suresh Kumar on 9 July, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 207 of 2013 Date of Institution : 22.05.2013 Date of Decision : 09.07.2013 The Group General Manager, IRCTC Limited, 9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building No.16., Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001 Appellant/Opposite Party V e r s u s M.Suresh Kumar s/o P.Ramadasan, Chief Manager, Canara bank, Sivagiri Branch at Hospital Road, Sivagiri, ....Respondent/complainant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.03.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:-
In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved his case. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed. The OP is directed to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards the mental & physical harassment caused to him on account of their deficient act, besides financial loss.
This order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.25,000/- along with penal interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 26.11.2012 till its actual payment.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 09.11.2010, the complainant, in order to go for a Picnic to Alwar, booked an e-ticket of FQ 001 Gairy Queen Special Train, for 27.11.2010, through the website of IRCTC. The tickets for journey from Chandigarh to Delhi and return journey from Delhi to Chandigarh, were also got booked through the website. It was stated that on reaching Delhi, the complainant contacted the Railway Station Authorities, which told him, that the said Fairy Queen Services were not ready for the season. It was further stated that the Railway Officials, at Delhi expressed surprise, as to how, the ticket for the Picnic Tour Train, was issued by the concerned Authorities. It was further stated that the Station Superintendent, at Delhi Cantt. (N.R.), also issued a certificate, to the effect, that the Fairy Queen Train, for the season 2010-11 had not yet started. Thereafter, the complainant had to return to Chandigarh, without undertaking the said journey. Thereafter, the matter was taken up with the Opposite Party, who, in turn, refunded an amount of Rs.10,200/-, which was paid for the said booking.
3. It was further stated that there was wrong facilitation of Picnic Tour Ticket Booking, on the website of IRCTC, whereas, the said services were not actually available and the rolling stock was also not ready for the season 2010-11. It was further stated that, no communication, was sent by the Opposite Party, either by e-mail or by mobile set, to the complainant, that the services aforesaid, for 27th Nov., 2010 were not available. It was further stated that, even in the e-mail dated 29.11.2010, the Opposite Party had not apologized for the inconvenience, caused to the complainant, and it was only stated that the amount of Rs.10,200/-, on account of the cancellation of ticket had been refunded.
4. It was further stated that the refund, aforesaid, had been made on 29.11.2010 i.e. after the completion of to & fro journey by the complainant, from Chandigarh to Delhi and Back, on 27th and 28th Nov., 2010, respectively. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice, as a result whereof, the complainant had to go through a lot of mental agony, tension, unnecessary hardship, physical harassment, as well as financial loss. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to pay Rs.6,878.61 Ps., incurred by him, towards various expenses, during travelling from Chandigarh to Delhi and back, alongwith interest @21% P.A., from the date of filing the complaint, till realization; compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, for mental agony, physical harassment, as also financial loss; and cost of litigation.
5. Despite service, neither the Opposite Party, nor his duly authorized representative appeared, on his behalf. Accordingly the Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte.
6. The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
9. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
10. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, submitted that the District Forum had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, as the ticket online, was booked at Bangalore, whereas, the train, in question, for which the same (ticket) was booked, was to depart from Delhi to Alwar and back. He also referred to the documents, submitted alongwith the memorandum of appeal, at pages 41 and 42 of the paper book, in support of his contention. He further submitted that, since no cause of action, accrued to the respondent/complainant, at Chandigarh, the District Forum, wrongly usurped the territorial Jurisdiction, and passed the order impugned, which being inherently illegal is liable to be set aside.
11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that, at the relevant time, the respondent/complainant was posted at Chandigarh, as Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Chandigarh. He further submitted that the ticket was booked at Chandigarh, and not at Bangalore. He further submitted that, as such, the District Forum had territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint.
12. The question, as to whether, the District Forum at Chandigarh, had territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint or not, goes to the root of the case. Since, the appellant/Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte, in the District Forum, he could not be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence, by way of affidavit(s). No doubt, alongwith the appeal, certain documents have been submitted by the appellant/Opposite Party, to show that the ticket, in question, was booked, online, at Bangalore, and not at Chandigarh. These documents are very material, for deciding the question, as to whether, the District Forum at Chandigarh, had territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. These documents can only be proved, after the Opposite Party is afforded an opportunity, to file reply, and lead evidence, by way of affidavit(s). In that event, the complainant shall also be required to be afforded an opportunity, to rebut the same. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, with a view to resolve the controversy, in a proper manner, the order of the District Forum, is liable to be set aside, and the complaint deserves to be remanded back, to it (District Forum), for fresh decision.
13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted. The order of the District Forum, is set aside. The complaint is remanded back, to the District Forum, with a direction to afford an opportunity to the Opposite Party, to file his written version, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s), and then decide the complaint, afresh, in accordance with the provisions of law. Since, delay in the disposal of complaint afresh, on merits, shall be caused, on account of non-appearance of the Opposite Party, in the District Forum, resulting into remand of the same, he (appellant/Opposite Party), is liable to be burdened with costs. The appellant/Opposite Party shall pay cost to the tune of Rs.2000/-, to the respondent/complainant/ Counsel. The payment of costs to the respondent/complainant/Counsel, shall be a condition precedent. In other words, the payment of costs, shall be made, before filing the written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s).
14. The parties are directed to appear, before the District Forum (I) on 22.07.2013, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.
15. The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back, to it, immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 22.07.2013, at 10.30 A.M.
16. Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.
Pronounced.
July 9, 2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg