GENERAL MANAGER, S.E.RAILWAY vs SATYA NARAYAN AGRAWAL

THIS appeal is directed against order dated 7th April, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in Case No. 43 of 92 in which the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were opposite party and respondent No. 1 was the complainant before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly noticed. THE complainant had got four berths reserved from Ramgarh for himself and his family members in Train No. 801 UP in Second Class A.C. Coach for 2.5.87. On 2.5.87 he along with his family mem bers entered into the A/c Second Class Coach of the said Train No. 801 UP at Ramgarh and found that berth Nos. 39,40,41 and 42 which had been reserved for him and his family members were being occupied by some other persons. THE complainant informed the Station Master who assured him that he will inform by telephone the Station Master of Barkakana Junction-the next station, where the train stops for twenty minutes and the complainant and his family members would get those berths. THE complainant and his family members on this assurance of the Station Master, Ramgarh proceeded by that train standing in the said Coach. But at Barkakana Railway Station the complainant and his family members could not get those berths. THE complainant who was then aged about sixty years became tired and exhausted due to the strain he was put to by travelling standing in the train and his condition became serious. He along with family members therefore, had to cancel further journey and they got an endorsement made by Guard "Journey cancelled for want of accommodation, fare to be refunded" and they got down from the train. THE Railway Authorities however inspite of repeated requests have not refunded the fare up-till now. THE complainant with these allegations lodged a complaint with the District Forum for refund of the fare with 18% p.a. interest thereon and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the loss suffered and physical and mental harassment caused to them due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Railway Authorities. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and filed counter version disputing and controverting the claim of the complainant though admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been averred by them in there counter version that the demand for refund of the fare was deliberately sent by the complainant by wrong address (14 Strand Road, Calcutta-1) and therefore it could never be delivered to the Railway Authorities. It has been further averred by the opposite party that the opposite party is ready to refund the fare paid by the complainant and for that the complainant should address the Chief Commercial Manager (Refund), S.E. Railway, 1, India Exchange Place, Calcutta-1 with the original tickets enclosed. It has been further stated that the Railway Authorities are not liable to pay any compensation if the complainant failed to get any accommodation in that train.

The District Forum, however, has directed the opposite party to refund the fare with 12% interest p.a. thereon and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant and his family members.

AGAINST this order of the District Forum the present appeal has been filed. The learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that on the date the complainant was presented before the District Forum the claim of the complainant has become time barred and therefore the complaint was fit to be dismissed and not entertained by the District Forum. The impugned order has been also assailed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the ground that the case of the complainant was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) in view of the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Tribunal Act) and the District Forum has erred in entertaining the complaint in respect of the claim for refund of the fare.

NOW, so far the maintainability of the case under the Act is concerned the provisions of Section 13 of Tribunal Act which reads as follows has to be looked into :- 13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal :-"(1) The Claims Tribunal shall exercise on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act :- (a) relating to the responsibility of the RailWay Administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of Railways Act in respect of claims for - (i) compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway; (ii) compensation payable under Section 82A of the Railways Act or the rules made there under; and (b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. (2) The provisions of the Railways Act and the rules made there under shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring into or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act."

It is evident from Section 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Act that the Claims Tribunal appointed under the Tribunal Act, 1987 have been empowered to exercise all jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of the claim for refund of fare or part thereof on or from the appointed date. Admittedly the Claims Tribunal was in existence on the date the complaint was filed. Section 15 of the Tribunal Act provides that on and from the appointed date no Court or authority shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction or authority in relation to the matters referred to in Sub-section 1'' of Section 13. Thus in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Tribunal Act the jurisdiction of the Redressal Agencies under the Act has been barred and excluded in respect of the claims of refund of fare or part thereof. It has been argued by the Authorised Representative of the respondent that the case was not only for the refund of the fare but also for the compensation for the physical inconvenience, harassment and mental anguish caused to the complainant and his family members due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.. But the case is essentially for the refund of the fare therefore this argument on behalf of the respondent can not be accepted. Moreover, admittedly the cause of action in this case accrued to the complainant on 2.5.87 and the case was presented before the District Forum on 2.6.92 i.e.; five years thereafter. The period of limitation prescribed for filing cases before the Claims Tribunal under the Tribunal Act for refund of fare is three years from the date on which the fare is paid to the Railway Administration (Section 17 of the Tribunal Act may be looked into). In the present case the tickets were purchased by the complainant on 1.5.87. According to the complainant he suffered physically and mentally due to failure of the opposite party to give to him and his family members accommodation in the concerned train on 2.5.87 on the basis of those tickets. But the instant case was filed before the District Forum five years thereafter on 2.6.92.

HENCE on the date on which the complaint was presented before the District Forum the claim had become time barred and stale. Therefore the District Forum ought not to have entertained the case which was in respect of a stale claim. For these reasons we find and hold that the impugned order can not be sustained.

IN the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint is dismissed. We, however, direct that the amount of the fare paid by the complainant in respect of those tickets will be refunded to the complainant, if not already refunded up-till now by the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), S.E. Railway as it has been so undertaken by the opposite party in their counter version.

There is, however, no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.