Back
Pradumna Vamanrai Hathi - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 01/28/1997
Appeal No. 290 of 1996
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. D.K. Mehta
Held: It is not explained as to how the Railway Administration considers the period of 72 hours as periods of three days. The period of three days is different from period of 72 hours and the Railway Administration was not justified in computing period of three days as 72 hours from the time the train was expected to depart from Bombay. It is on account of the unbending and/or rigid attitude and technical stand of the Railway Administration that the appellant was driven to file complaint before the City Forum to claim refund. The attitude of the Railway Administration, to say the least, is deplorable. The appellant could not be blamed for presenting the tickets for refund at Ahmedabad after the expiry of three days because he could present these tickets at Ahmedabad only after he received them from Bombay. The Railway Authorities at Bombay had unjustifiably refused refund the fare and it was therefore that tickets had to be sent to the appellant at Ahmedabad to claim refund. The appellant could present them to the Railway Authorities at Ahmedabad only after receiving them from Bombay. Under these circumstances, the Railway Administration or Authority should not have invoked the aforesaid rule prescribing three days period for claiming refund. In any case, as already observed above such rule cannot be invoked in an extraordinary situation like present one where the Railway Administration itself had cancelled the train. (Para 5)
The City Forum was therefore not right in dismissing the complaint of the appellant on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain his complaint. The Railway Claims Tribunal could not have awarded damages or compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration in unjustifiably denying refund of the ticket fare. Therefore, to the extent that the appellants claim for damages for deficiency in service is concerned, the City Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the appellants complaint. (Para 6)
If there is a rule prescribing limitation of three days for claiming refund, this rule could not have been invoked in a situation like the present one. In any case, the period of three days had not expired. Therefore, even on admission of the respondents, refusal to refund was totally unjustified. As already observed, refund of ticket fare at Ahmedabad was also unjustified. There was therefore, negligence or in any case deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Administration or Authority/respondents. The appellant is therefore, entitled to claim compensation or damages for such negligence or deficiency in service. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it would be reasonable to award compensation of Rs. 2,500/- for such deficiency in service. (Para 7)
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
R.C. Yankad, President – This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated August 2, 1996 passed by the City District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad(City Forum for short) in Complaint No. 1048 of 1992.
2. The appellant, complainant in the aforesaid complaint had booked from Ahmedabad Reservation Office of Western Railway three 2nd Class A.C. tickets for return journey from Bombay to Ahmedabad to travel by Gujarat Express(Train No. 9011 Dn.) leaving Bombay Central on May 22, 1991 and the fare paid was Rs.435/-. The appellant and his family members had gone to Bombay by Gujarat Express on May 18. 1991 and they proposed to return to Ahmedabad by Gujarat Express leaving Bombay Central on May 22, 1991 as aforesaid. On account of sad demise of Shri Rajiv Gandhi all trains including Gujarat Express which was to leave Bombay Central on May 22, 1991 were cancelled by the Railway Authorities. The appellant came to know about the cancellation of the train by which he and his family members were to travel only on reaching Dadar Railway Station of the Western Railway on May 22, 1991. Since the train by which the appellant and his family members were to travel was cancelled, he was entitled to refund of the full ticket fare paid by him. The appellant could not get refund of the ticket fare from the counter on account of heavy rush for refund and therefore he entrusted the return journey tickets to his relative K.C. Chhaya at Bombay. K.C. Chhaya, when his turn came after waiting for a long period in the queue, was told that since the tickets were purchased from Ahmedabad, refund could not be claimed at Bombay. Therefore, though the return tickets were presented at Bombay within three days, the appellant did not refund the ticket fare. When the tickets were presented by the appellant at the Ahmedabad Railway Station on May 29/30, 1991, the refund clerk refused to refund the ticket fare on the ground that the period of three days for refund had already expired. The appellant thereupon approached the Chief Commercial Superintendent at Bombay for the refund of the train fare. The Chief Commercial Superintendent did not refund the ticket fare. The appellant also served notice on the Chief Commercial Superintendent/Railway Administration through his Advocate claiming refund of the fare. The fare was, however, not refunded. It is in the background of the above facts that the appellant approached the City Forum by way of aforesaid complaint claiming total damages of Rs. 13,110/- including Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and agony from the respondents.
3. The respondent contested the complaint by filing written statement. It was contended that the appellant was not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and the City Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's complaint. It was further submitted that in case of cancellation of train, the passengers were required to obtain refund of the fare paid by them within a period of three days. The appellant ought to have presented tickets for refund at Bombay within three days. The tickets were however presented on May 25, 1991 after expiry of three days from the time of departure of the train. Therefore, the clerk/officer at the Bombay Central Station was justified in refusing refund of the fare. It was denied that the Railway Authorities refused to grant refund on the ground that tickets were booked at Ahmedabad and therefore refund could be claimed only at Ahmedabad. It was further submitted that the Railway Authorities at Ahmedabad also could not have granted refund as the period of three days had already expired. On the above grounds, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The City Forum, by its impugned judgment and order held that only the Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim for refund under Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Jurisdiction of other Courts and Authorities to entertain su
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
