National Consumer Disputes Redressal
U.O.I vs Chandra Praksh & 3 Ors. on 30 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2506 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 21/05/2013 in Appeal No. 1593/2012 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. U.O.I THROUGH D.R.M.(NORTH WEST RAILWAY) 2. U.O.I. THROUGH SR COMM MANAGER, (NORTH WEST RAILWAY) 3. U.O.I. THROUGH SR COMM MANAGER, (NORTH WEST RAILWAY) ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHANDRA PRAKSH & 3 ORS. S/O JUGAL KISHORE JOSHI, R/O PLOT NO-F-9 MAJOR SHAITAN SINGH COLONY, SHASTRI NAGAR JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 2. YOGENDRA PRAKASH JOSHI, S/O JUGAL KISHORE JOSHI, R/O PLOT NO-F-9 MAJOR SHAITAN SINGH COLONY, SHASTRI NAGAR JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 3. SMT. RAJESHWARI JOSHI, W/O CHANDRA PRAKASH JOSHI, R/O PLOT NO-F-9 MAJOR SHAITAN SINGH COLONY, SHASTRI NAGAR JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 4. SMT. VIMLA JOSHI, W/O YOGENDRA JOSHI, R/O PLOT NO-F-9 MAJOR SHAITAN SINGH COLONY, SHASTRI NAGAR JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.A. Satar, Adv. For the Respondent : Respondents are already exparte.
Dated : 30 Jun 2015 ORDER
Heard.
2. Respondents/Complainants on 9th January 2009, booked 3-AC berths from Jaipur to Asansol and Asansol to Jasdih for 19.3.2009. When respondents left for Jaipur by Toofan Express on 23.09.2009, the Ticket Checker told them, that the train will be terminated at Mughal Sarai. Hence, they may board Howrah to Jodhpur Express. Thereafter, respondents met the Deputy Superintendent but to no avail. After waiting for seven hours, respondents boarded in 3rd AC coach of Howrah-Jodhpur at Mughal Sarai Station but were not provided allotted berths. The T.T. of the train refused to allot reserved berths and also threatened to impose penalty upon them. Since, Petitioners/Opposite Parties neither provided seats nor made any other alternate arrangement, therefore respondents suffered a lot of difficulties on the part of the petitioners. Hence, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum.
3. Petitioners in their written statement admitted, that the train in question was terminated on 24.3.2009 at 3.00 AM. However, it is stated that Deputy Superintendent has authorized the respondents for onward journey. It is further stated, that respondents had already been informed regarding termination of train and they were allowed to travel as per their specific reserve class. There is no deficiency in service on part of the petitioners.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-IV, Jaipur(for short, 'District Forum) vide order dated 22.11.2012, allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the financial, mental and physical agony suffered by the complainants. In addition, litigation charges of Rs.1,500/- were also awarded.
5. Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, respondents filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, 'State Commission) for enhancement. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 21.5.2013, allowed their appeal and modified the order of the District Forum to the extent, that each Complainant is entitled to get Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for mental agony. Thus, petitioners were held liable to make total payment of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) to all the four respondents.
6. Hence, this revision.
7. Present incident took place in the year 2009. About 6 years have already passed. After going through the entire record, it is apparent that no legal issue is involved in the present revision. Moreover, there are concurrent findings of facts given by both the Fora below against the petitioners. Even otherwise, only paltry amount of Rs.25,000/- each has been awarded in favour of each of the respondents. Therefore, this Commission is not inclined to entertain this petition, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and Another, IV (2012) CPJ 5 (SC), where the Court observed;
"2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers' skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category."
The Apex Court further held;
"10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers' office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and, to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of ₹15,000/-even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of ₹12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc. Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded ₹3,000/-towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to ₹15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for ₹15,000/-.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani.
12. We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.
13. Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.
14. We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of ₹10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether ₹25,950/- for a claim of ₹15,000/-, apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins."
8. Above quoted judgment is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. Therefore, this Commission is not inclined to entertain this petition. However, question of law raised in this petition is kept open, to be decided in an appropriate case where stakes are high and amount involved is substantial.
10. With these observations, present revision petition stand disposed of.
11. Dasti.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER