Tribunals and Commissions

SHEELA DAS vs STATION SUPERINTENDENT, CUTTACK RLY. STATION

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 8 May 2001 · Citation: 2001 3 CPJ 469 : 2002 1 CPR 129

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.M.Patnaik , Arati Mohanty , Pramodnath Das J.
RESULT
Complaint dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 375 words
1.

HEARD Mr. D.N. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the Railway, and Mr. S.S. Das, the learned Counsel for the complainant. No mention has been made for an adjournment. This is a matter of 1995. We have not thought it appropriate to adjourn this matter but purpose to dispose of the same in the following manner.

2.

THE allegation is that the complainant purchased ticket to travel from Cuttack to New Delhi by Purusottam Express which was scheduled to leave Cuttack Railway Station on 21.7.1995 at 23.05 hours. THE grievance of the complainant is, by the time, she reached the station before the scheduled time for departure, the train had already departed. Having faced the situation of grave inconvenience and harassment she filed this complaint petition for compensation against the Railway. The stand of the Railway is, as is indicated in para 4 of the written version, that the complainant infact had booked the ticket prior to 1.7.1995 when the timing as alleged by the complainant was the old timing for arrival and departure of the train. But after 1.7.1995 there was a rescheduling of the train timing. On the date of travel i.e. 21.7.1995 the departure was scheduled to be 22.32 hours. It is also the case of the Railway that for this change of timing they have given wide publicity to all concerned by way of publication in the daily newspaper and T.V., Radio etc.

On perusal of the xerox copy of the ticket we are unable to read the date on which the ticket was booked. There is also no averment in the complaint petition on what date it was booked. Therefore, in the absence of a specific pleading as to the date of booking we have thought it appropriate to accept the written version of the Railway, that the ticket was booked prior to 1.7.1995. We also accept the version that there was a change of timing after 1.7.1995 which the complainant should have taken note of it. On going through the documents on record, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Railway. We, therefore, dismiss this complaint petition but without any cost. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Complaint dismissed.