NORTHERN RAILWAY AND ORS vs N K SINGLA

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 02-09-2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission''), in First Appeal No. 252 of 2014 Northern Railway through G.M., New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Dr. N.K. Singla, by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent had booked a Circular Tour Ticket (for brevity ''CTT'') No. 41592417 on 20.05.2013 for the journey to start from 07.07.2013 in 3 AC class for two adults i.e. himself and his wife (both senior citizens) from the City Booking office, Northern Railway, Sector 17, Chandigarh. It was stated that the complainant paid Rs.4,375/- as fare, Rs.720/- towards reservation charges and Rs.90/- as supplementary charges for super-fast trains, total Rs.5,185/-. It was further stated that the said ticket was valid upto 19.08.2013 (Annexure C1/1 to C1/9). It was further stated that the complainant found that he had been over-charged for the aforesaid ticket on four counts. It was further stated that although the opposite parties knew that there was no train having 3AC coach, yet they issued the Ticket on the CHURU-RINGAS section and charged for 3 AC Class, due to this, the complainant had to suffer in parching hot conditions of Rajasthan in the month of July. It was further stated that the opposite parties were required to refund the difference between the charged fare of 3 AC and fare of an ordinary train. It was further stated that the same amounted to Rs.350/- per ticket and for 2 tickets it is for Rs.700/-. Alleging all charges and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and denied charging extra amount and submitted that Consumer Fora as no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to refund Rs.700/- and pay compensation of Rs.500/-. Appeal filed by opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint even then learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

The core question to be decided is whether complaint regarding refund of excess charges is maintainable before Consumer Forum. Learned State Commission referred citations in favour and against on the point that whether Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and ultimately held that Consumer Fora has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and dismissed appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Northern Railway & Ors. Vs. Dau Dayal Chaturvedi, 2010 4 CPJ 154 ; Revision Petition No. 3832 of 2010 Kacharu Lal Agrawal Vs. The General Manager, South East Central Railway; Revision Petition No. 1874 of 2012 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Yash Industries & Anr.; First Appeal No. 411 of 1996 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sri Ramji Enterprises & Anr., in which it was held that such complaints are not maintainable before Consumer Fora in the light of bar created by Section 13 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. On the other hand respondent placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in his Revision Petition No. 931 of 2014 Addl. General Manager, Northern Railway Vs. Dr. N.K. Singla, in which order of District Forum and State Commission allowing refund of Rs.320/- was upheld. Perusal of aforesaid order reveals that question of law was left open. In the aforesaid revision petition case was only pertaining to refund of Rs.320/- and while disposing revision petition cost awarded was reduced from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.1,500/-. Respondent also placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in Revision Petition No. 4882 of 2013 Union of India & Anr. Vs. Susanta Kumar Saha, in which order allowing complaint was upheld and revision petition was dismissed and he further submitted that SLP filed against this order was dismissed by Hon''ble Apex Court. Perusal of order of this Commission in aforesaid matter reveals that in that matter complainant did not claim refund of fare or part thereof so aforesaid case was not applicable to the present case. Not only this, Hon''ble Apex Court has dismissed SLP at the initial stage without assigning any reasons. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that complaint filed by complainant for refund of excess amount was maintainable before Consumer Fora.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 02-09-2014 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 252 of 2014 Northern Railway through G.M., New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Dr. N.K. Singla and order of District Forum dated 20th May, 2014 passed in Complaint No. 4 of 2014 Dr. N.K. Singla Vs. Northern Railway through G.M., New Delhi & Anr. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach Railway Claims Tribunal for Redressal of his grievance. Parties to bear their costs.