Suresh Mishra vs CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is directed against order dated 15.5.2001, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/2743/1998 entitled Shri Suresh Mishra v. THE Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant, Shri Suresh Mishra had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had booked four seats for travelling by rail from Railway Station, New Delhi to Deoria Sadar by Train No. 4674 DN on 3.5.1998. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the appellant, that after receiving the charges, a ticket bearing No. 76919251 was issued to the appellant by the functionaries of the respondents for performing the above said journey by train. It was further stated by the appellant that on reaching the railway station on 3.5.1998 he found that Compartment No. S-4, in which seats bearing No. 1, 10, 11 and 12 were allotted to him, was so crowded that the appellant and his family members could not enter in that compartment which was stationed at Platform No. 7, Railway Station, New Delhi. It was further stated that the appellant had also carried with him an Aristocrat attache-case which contained Rs. 15,000/- in cash, return ticket from Deoria Sadar to New Delhi for two persons besides his other blongings. It was alleged that due to overcrowding the appellant and his family members could not perform the journey by the said train. It was alleged that in the crowd, the wife of the appellant fell down and his above mentioned attache-case, containing cash, return ticket and personal belongings was also lost. It was stated that regarding loss of that attache-case, an FIR was got recorded on the same day at the Railway Police Station, New Delhi. It was stated that the appellant claimed refund of the amount spent for the tickets together with damage but the respondents illegally rejected the claim of the appellant. In the complaint, filed by the appellant before the District Forum, it was prayed that the amount of the tickets be directed to be refunded to him together with the cost of the luggage lost. THE appellant had also claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental torture to himself and to his family members. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondents. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that refund of the ticket amount is subject to Railway Passengers (Cancellation of Ticket and Refund of Fares) Rules, 1980 and as the refund was claimed contrary to the above statutory rules, the same was not allowed. It was, however, stated by the respondents in the reply filed by them that the luggage of the appellant was in his personal custody and, therefore, the Railway Administration was not responsible for the same. It was further stated that under Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, the Railway Administration is not responsible for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of any luggage unless a railway servant had booked the luggage and given receipt thereof. It was stated in the written reply version that the complaint filed by the appellant was devoid of substance and deserved to be dismissed.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that there was no merit in the complaint, filed by the appellant and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. A notice of the appeal, filed by the appellant, was issued to the respondents who have entered through their Advocate and have filed a detailed reply to the memorandum and grounds of appeal. A rejoinder on behalf of the appellant has been filed to the reply, filed on behalf of the respondents.

WE have heard the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record including the memorandum and grounds of appeal, reply filed on behalf of the respondents and the rejoinder, filed on behalf of the appellant. During the course of arguments, it was contended by the appellant that since the appellant due to default on the part of respondents could not perform the journey for which he had booked the ticket, the appellant in all fairness should have been refunded the amount spent by him in purchasing the ticket. Insofar as the above aspect is concerned, the position is that it is not in dispute that refund in respect of ticket amount is governed by statutory rules known as Railway Passengers (Cancellation of Ticket and Refund of Fares) Rules, 1980. In terms of the provisions of the above rules which are printed and published in the Railway Time Table for the information and guidance of the travelling public, the application seeking such refunds is to be made within 12 hours of the departure of the train in question. In the instant case, the appellant sought for the refund not within the specified time but on 20.5.1998. As the refund was not sought for by the appellant within time, the same could not be allowed by the railway authorities. In view of the above legal position it is apparent that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents on the above count. Rather the appellant himself was negligent and careless in not preferring the claim in time. The next limb of argument advanced by the appellant was with regard to the loss of his attache-case. It is not in dispute that the attache-case in question was in the personal custody of the appellant and, therefore, under Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, the respondents were not responsible for the loss unless the same was booked as a luggage and a receipt in token of the same having been booked was issued by the authorised functionaries of the respondents. In the present case, the attache-case as already stated, was not booked as a luggage but was in the personal custody of the appellant when the same was lost. Thus, in terms of the statutory provisions contained in the Railways Act, the respondents cannot be sadddled with any liability in the given circumstances. No other point has been urged or pressed.

IN view of the above discussion, the order being impugned in the present proceedings, which is a well-reasoned order, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. IN the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to hear them on costs. Appeal dismissed.