S.K.SHARMA vs DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYS

BRIEF facts of the case are that Dr. S.K. Sharma, appellant for short, travelled from Kalka to Delhi by Himalyan Queen train No. 4096 on 24.11.1993. He had to return to Kalka to attend the hearing of a case on 2nd December, 1993. He, therefore, made a requisition for one berth in Second Class A.C. by Kalka Mail train No. 2311 for the return journey from Delhi to Kalka on 1.12.1993. The reservation clerk wrongly issued ticket for the return journey. It was wrong in two respects, (i) the ticket was issued from Kalka to Delhi instead of Delhi to Kalka, and (ii) instead of train being 2311 it was issued for train No. 2312. The complainant bonafide believed that the ticket issued was according to the requisition made by him in writing. About 15 minutes before the departure of the train on 1.12.1993 he found his name absent from the reservation chart. He surrendered the wrong ticket as advised and bought a new ticket for First Class which was unreserved. The complainant reported the matter to the Regional Manager, Northern Railway and also to Mr. R.K. Som, D.T.M. but to no purpose. The complainant ultimately filed a complaint about deficiency in service and for compensation for harassment and agony caused to him. He claimed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The case was contested. On a consideration of the matter District Forum-I held that claim for refund was within the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal constituted under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and jurisdiction of the Forum was barred u/Section 15 of the said Act. It was also noted that the complainant had, during the pendency of the complaint, received refund of the amount relation to the wrong ticket. With these findings it was held that there was no deficiency in service and the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

REPLY has been filed by the respondent to which a rejoinder has been filed by the complain-ant. We have heard the appellant, who argued in person and Mr. H.L. Nanda, Advocate for the respondent and have carefully gone through the records. The first objection is that the appeal is barred by limitation. The material dates are : the District Forum order is dated 23.9.1996, certified copy of the order was received by the complainant on 12.10.1996 (vide photo copy of the original envelop containing postal cancellation marks) and the appeal was filed on 8.11.1996. It is settled law that limitation starts running from the date of communication of the order to the person concerned vide Haryana HousingBoard v. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association & Ors. III (1995) CPJ 28 (SC). The appeal was thus filed within the time prescribed and the objection regarding limitation is untenable.

Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 has been re-produced in the order of the District Forum. The relevant part is Section 13(1)(ii)(b) which reads as under : "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."

A bare perusa1 of the above provision shows that it is restricted to claims for refund of fares as distinguished from compensation on account of negligence in issuing the ticket. The District Forum has, therefore, in our view fallen into a serious error in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the case was covered u/Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. As we read the said provision it is confined only to refund of fare and does not cover cases of alleged negligence in issuing the ticket resulting in harassment to the consumer.

EVEN otherwise, the present case is covered by various decisions relied on by the appellant. These are : (1) General Manager, South Eastern Railway & Others v. Anand Prasad Sinha & Others, I (1991) CPJ 10 (NC). It was held that passengers travelling by trains on payment of stipulated fare charged for the ticket are consumers and the facility of transportation by Railway provided by the Railway Administration as a service rendered for consideration as defined under the Act. (2) S. Pushpavanam & Am. v. The G.M. Southern Railways & Anr., II (1991) CPJ 64 (Tamil Nadu State Commission).

In this case the complainant reserved a second class ticket from Madras to Bombay. The reservation cleark made the endorsement confirming reservation for travel by the train for a date on which the said express train did not ply from Madras to Bombay. It was held that the fault was entirely with the concerned member of Railway staff and that they could not escape liability on the ground that inconvenience was due to the complainant''s inadequacy of the knowledge of the schedule of the service. The State Commission awarded Rs. 7,500/- as compensation besides Rs. 500/- as costs. The appellant has cited several other decisions but we do not wish to burden this judgment with those citations.

WE are clearly of the view that Section 13 read with Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act did not cover the present case and, therefore, jurisdiction of the FORA under the Consumer Protection Act was not excluded. On merits, the complainant placed on record attested true copy of the requisition slip, duly attested by Reservation Supervisor, Kalka, photocopy of the same has been filed as Annexure 4 in the rejoinder filed by appellant. In the requisition, slip it has been clearly mentioned that the reservation required was for 1.12.1993 by train 2311 from Delhi to Kalka. The ticket, however, issued was from Kalka to Delhi on train No. 2312. The staff concerned was, thus, demonstrably guilty of deficiency in service which resulted in harassment and inconvenience to the complainant who had to run around, surrender the wrong ticket, buy a first class ticket i and had to travel without reservation with all its i implied shortcomings, Mr. Nanda, learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that on me ticket itself it was printed that the person buying the same should makes ure that the ticket had been rightly issued. In other words, the complainant was himself responsible as he did not point out to the clerk that the ticket had been wrongly issued. We are not prepared to accept this contention. The primary responsibility for issuing the ticket correctly as per the requirements mentioned in the requisition is on the reservation staff and the said responsibility cannot be highly shouldered off by saying that the person purchasing the ticket should have brought the mistake to the notice of the clerk. The end result in the present case was that the complainant was put to harassment and inconvenience and in our view this constituted deficiency in service.

MR. Nanda next pointed out that the amount of Rs. 231 /- being the cost of the wrong ticket had been refunded to the complainant vide cheque dated 12.9.1994 and the same having been accepted without any protest, the complainant was estopped from filing the complaint. There is no merit in this contention as well. The complaint was filed in 1993 and the aforesaid refund was receivd vide cheque dated 12.9.1994, during the pendency of the proceedings. There is no question of estoppel in receiving the cheque during the pendency of the proceedings. In the facts of the present case, the complainant wrote his protest to the Chief Cashier vide his letter dated 10.12.1994 (Annexure 2 filed with the rejoinder).

THE complainant pointed out that he had to pay Rs. 15/- as Bank charges for encashment of the said cheque. This in supported by certificate issued by the State Bank of India dated 13.12.1994 (filed as Annexure 3 (b) with the rejoinder). Keeping in view me facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the complainant has already received refund of Rs. 231/-, it would meet the ends of justice if the complainant is paid Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and direct the respondent to pay the said amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which it will be open to the complainant to invoke jurisdiction u/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the order be communicated to the parties as well as District Forum-I. Appeal allowed.