Union of India and another vs N.K. Das

Mr. N. Chaudhury, J. - None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called up. Mr. D Banerjee appears on behalf of the sole respondent.

By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Union of India has challenged the order dated 22.01.2014 whereby notice has been issued by learned District Consumer Forum, Kamrup at Guwahati under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The present opposite party, as complainant, filed complaint case being CPC No. 46/2007 against Union of India in the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kamrup at Guwahati. By that complaint, the opposite party stated that he had purchased a railway ticket in September, 2004 for journey from Guwahati to New Delhi on 13.10.2004 by Rajdhani Express. He subsequently got the ticket cancelled on 14.10.2004 at 0615 hours. The authority at Guwahati railway station issued the ticket deposit receipt to the complainant. On 03.01.2005 when the complainant applied for refund of the value of the railway ticket as per the terms, the same was not refunded. After lapse of about 10 months, he received two letter dated 25.10.2005 and 09.11.2005 from General Manager (Claims), N.F. Railways asking to furnish the original charge slip. As the complainant could not produce the same being old document, the railway authorities refused to refund the amount to him. It is the case of the complainant that in similarly situated cases, refunds were made by the railway authority.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering their respective cases, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint directing the railway authority to refund face value of the ticket being Rs. 1345/- along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- as cost within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. It was also directed that the aforesaid amount would carry an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of judgment till realisation. Aggrieved, Union of India and the railway authority preferred first appeal being No. 45/2010 in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Assam. The learned State Commission after hearing both sides passed detailed judgment on 28.06.2012 modifying the judgment of the trial court and thereby reduced the compensation to Rs. 2,000/-. It was held by the State Commission that railway should not have withheld the legally due benefit to the claimant/consumer for long on the pretext of mere formalities and technicalities. The consumer thus became entitled to a sum of Rs. 2673/- (the half of the price of the ticket plus Rs. 2000/- as compensation) along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum as decreed by the learned District Forum.

The railway authority thereafter approached the National Commission challenging the concurrent findings of the two tribunals below unsuccessfully and thus, the judgment and order passed by the learned State Commission has attained finality. Even thereafter the railway authority did not make payment but for which the consumer had to approach the District Forum again for appropriate action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned District Forum has thereafter issued impugned order for appearance of the opposite party.

Having perused the application and on consideration of the facts and circumstances, this court does not find any jurisdictional error to have been committed by the learned District Forum in issuing notice under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Petitioner has failed to make out sufficient cause as to why the order has not been complied with as yet. It is a matter of mere Rs. 2673/- along with interest at the rate of 8% thereon for which the railway authority should not have approached one forum after another. Even this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ought not to have preferred by the railway authorities for such paltry sum.

On consideration of the entirety of the circumstances, no case has been made out warranting interference under supervisory jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.

No order as to costs.