CHIEF COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT, NEW DELHI vs RAJINDER SINGH

THE Northern Railways appeals against the order of the District Forum, Kamal directing the refund of Rs. 73/- for the unused railway ticket and granting compensation of Rs. 1500/- for the gross delay in doing so.

SINCE the issue in the present appeal is now narrowed down to the inordinate delay in making the refund and the quantum thereof, the facts may be noticed with the relevance to the said issue alone. The respondent-consumer had purchased four railway tickets for journey from Karnal to Ludhiana on the 10th of August, 1991 on payment of Rs. 136/-. The respondents boarded the Ekta Express for the journey from Karnal to Ambala which however, had arrived so late at Karnal owing to the chain pulling at Kurukshetra that the respondent missed the connection with Shane-Punjab train from Ambala to Ludhiana. Consequently, he deposited all the four tickets with the Station Superintendent, Northern Railways, Ambala, as unused for the rest of the journey and the latter assured him of refund within one week. However, despite repeated requests and representations no refund was made at all. On notice being issued the present appellant treated the proceedings before the District Forum somewhat cavallerly. Representation on their behalf was made by a clerk, who presented a pay order of Rs. 73/- to the complainant which he refused to accept and pressed the matter to its logical conclusion. The appellant thereafter chose to ignore the matter altogether and no further appearance was put in, with the result that the ex parte proceedings were ordered. The respondent in support of his case put in his affidavit evidence asserting that he had contacted the office of the appellant at Delhi for atleast 10 times without redress. Reliance was also placed on the unrebutted documents on the record.

The District Forum accepted the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. But took the view that there was no culpability or negligence on the part of the appellant-railway in so far as the Ekta Express was delayed owing to the mis-conduct of chain pulling by passenger. It however, took the view that there was inordinate delay in making a simple and small refund of the unused tickets for which the respondent had to run from pillar to post and for as many as 10 times to the office of the railway without success. Consequently, the relief was granted in the terms noticed at the out-set.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant apparently bereft of any argument on merits had pinned himself on what appears to us as hypertechnical it is. Apparently under some mis-apprehension learned Counsel put in the fore-front Section 17(1) of the Act and in particular Clause (b) pertaining to the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission. It was contended that the State Commission has the power to set aside the impugned order under appeal and in the end a prayer for the remand of the case for a fresh trial was made. We are afraid that the submissions of the learned Counsel are patently off the mark. The present appeal obviously is under Section 15 of the Act and on the .merits of the case. No question of the exercise of any revisional power arises herein and the reference or reliance on Clause (b) of Section 17(1) is this wholly irrelevant. We have not been able to see how the question of any refusal to exercise jurisdiction or the lack thereof arises in the present case. The primal argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant must fail.

WE are equally unable to find the least merit in the appellant''s claim that the order under appeal be set-aside and the case be remanded for a fresh trial. It was not disputed before us that the appellants were duly served and not only that representation thereofter had been made on their part through their official and apparently accepting the claim of the respondent a refund order of Rs. 73/- was tendered. However, thereafter the appellant almost contumaciously ignored the further proceedings in the District Forum and have only themselves to blame for now being faced with the unrebutted and unchallenged evidence led by the respondent. That leaves no manner of doubt that in a simple case of refund of an unused tickets, the respondent had to wait from the 10th of August, 1991 till the 30th of April, 1993 when the same was tendered without any further recompense and, therefore, rightly refused. The District Forum accepted the respondent''s version about his repeated visit to Delhi and the other offices of the appellant-railway for seeking the said refund without any success, and thereby forcing him to resort to the consumer jurisdiction. WE affirm the said findings. For the fore-going reasons, we are unable to find merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs which are assessed at a sum of Rs. 500/- only. Appeal dismissed with costs.