Jurisdiction of the District Forum in cases of railway ticket refund is governed by Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act.

Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1999 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ballia in Complaint Case No. 281/1999.

2. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant booked two sleeper class tickets on 23.3.1998 for 22.4.1998, one for himself and another for his wife. Both of them are senior citizens. The tickets were booked from Ballia to Kurla by Train No. 5220. The cost of the ticket was Rs. 476/- after allowing the rebate. For the personal reasons the journey had to be cancelled and the tickets were returned to the Ballia Railway Station on 18.4.1998. The complainant was not given refund of the ticket amount by the booking clerk, who referred the case to the Chief Ticket Examiner, Ballia Station as the ticket had been purchased by a senior citizen. The Chief Ticket Examiner took back the reservation ticket and issued a receipt on prescribed form on 18.4.1998, the copy of which is Annexure No. 1. The complainant was told that the case will be forwarded to the Chief Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur who will send the amount on the address of the complainant by money order.

3. After waiting for about five months when the money was not received, the complainant wrote a letter to the Chief Commercial Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur on 3.9.1998 under Certificate of Posting, the copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 2 No reply was received to this letter. Thereafter a registered letter dated 24.12.1998 was written to the same authority with a copy to the Hon’ble Minister for Railways, Central Secretariat, New Delhi by registered post, the copies of which are Annexure-3. Many letters were written to the railway authorities but no response was received, hence the complainant had filed this complaint for refund of the railway fare.

4. In the written version the opposite party has alleged that the complainant did not send the TDR photocopy to the opposite party No. 2 and also did not forward his application for refund of the ticket amount, hence it was not done. The refund has to be applied within 90 days and thereafter no person is entitled to get the refund. The TDR which was sent by the complainant by letter dated 3.9.1998 was sent long after the expiry of the above said period, hence it was done as no claim. The complainant is not a consumer. There is no deficiency on behalf of the opposite party.

5. The learned District Forum after considering the case of the parties, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service, hence it directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 476/- as cost of the ticket alongwith a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. It also allowed cost of Rs. 500/-. The amount was to be paid within a period of two months.

6. Aggrieved against this order the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Forum.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the opposite party who was present in person. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try this case because it is a matter of refund which is covered under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. According to the learned Counsel under above-mentioned section the case for refund of fare of a cancelled ticket can only be filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal and no other authority. We have perused the provisions of Railway Claims Act and we find that the Section 13 bars any claim being filed before any authority where the refund of ticket amount is involved. The claim can only be filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, therefore, the learned District Forum could not have decreed the claim of the complainant and should have atleast considered whether the claim which has been filed by the complainant falls within the jurisdiction of the District Forum or not. In our opinion, this complaint is not triable b