Union of India vs MRS.MADHU P.SINGH

UNION of India; Northern Railway through its General Manager, Baroda House, New Delhi; Sh. Bawa Singh, Train Superintendent, Shatabdi Express, New Delhi to Amritsar; and Sh. Nirmal Singh, Train Ticket Examiner, Shatabdi Express, New Delhi to Amritsar aforesaid have filed this appeal against order dated 24.12.1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum-II) vide which it allowed the complaint and directed for the refund of Rs. 700/- charged from the respondent/complainant, Mrs. Madhu P. Singh along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 31.3.1997 till payment and also awarded a consolidated compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant against the appellants who were made liable jointly and severally.

THE appellants were not present before the District Forum-II at the time the said complaint was taken up for hearing and disposal. Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate had appeared for the complainant/respondent, Madhu P. Singh w/o Sh. Pritpal Singh, r/o H. No. 43, Sector 16-A, Chandigarh. THE complainant/respondent had purchased a ticket for travelling by Shatabdi Express Train No. 2005 from New Delhi to Chandigarh on 31.3.1997. She was allotted a seat in Coach No. C-5 of the train. THE complainant reached the Railway Station, New Delhi to board the said train on 31.3.1997. After reaching the platform No. 1, the complainant/respondent found a board on the train displaying the name of the train as Kalka Shatabdi Express and accordingly, she boarded the train in the said Coach No. C-5. Soon thereafter, the train started moving, a passenger approached the complainant and told her that she was occupying the seat which was allotted to the said passenger. THEreafter, the complainant/respondent contacted the Superintendent of the train and learnt from him that she had boarded a wrong train and as a matter of fact the said Shatabdi train was going from New Delhi to Amritsar instead of from New Delhi to Kalka. It is alleged that the complainant then requested the Superintendent to stop the train at the next Railway Station, Sabzi Mandi to enable her to get down, but he refused. It is also alleged that the complainant was treated rather rudely. THE complainant was charged a sum of Rs. 700/- as fine by the Train Ticket Examiner, Sh. Nirmal Singh. It was further alleged that the train ultimately stopped at a distance of one kilometre ahead of Ambala Cantt. Railway Station and there she along with other similarly situated passengers were made to get down the train and thereby causing them inconvenience and harassment in reaching the railway platform at Ambala Cantt. for continuing their journey in the Kalka Shatabdi Express. On these averments, the respondent/complainant filed the complaint case and sought refund of the amount of Rs. 700/- besides compensation. As mentioned earlier, the District Forum-II allowed the complaint and directed for the refund of the amount as well as awarded compensation to the complainant/respondent against the appellants. The opposite parties of the complaint, namely, Union of India and Others felt aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum-II and have filed this appeal. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/complainant, who put in appearance. There was an application moved for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal which was allowed by this Commission order dated 13.9.2000 and the appeal was admitted for hearing.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate contended that the appellants were denied a reasonable opportunity for hearing before the District Forum-II and they could not place their version to the complaint case before the District Forum-II. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that an opportunity of hearing be allowed to the appellants before the District Forum-II so that the appellants may file an appropriate reply to the complaint case and lead evidence in support of their defence and also to challenge and meet the case and evidence of the complainant/respondent. The respondent, Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, appearing in person has stated that she has no objection in case an opportunity being allowed to the appellants. She contended that she has no objection to the remand of the case to the District Forum-II. She has further submitted that some time limit be fixed for the decision of the case by the District Forum-II so that the complaint case is disposed off expeditiously.

THUS, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice requires that the appellants should be afforded a reasonable opportunity before the District Forum-II and since the respondent herself has no objection to it, we accept this appeal, set aside the order passed by the District Forum-II in the complaint case and remand the complaint case for decision afresh to the District Forum-II. The District Forum-II shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellants to file written statement to the complaint case and then allow reasonable opportunity of hearing to the complainant as well as to the appellants to lead their respective evidence in the case and proceed to decide the complaint case expeditiously and preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-II on 4.6.2001. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.