Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Mr. Prem Narain, Member
GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY - Appellant
Versus
SHREE PATI SINGH - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1553 of 2015 (Against Order dated 31.12.2014 in Appeal No. 2052 of 2013 of Uttra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
Decided on : 05-09-2016
Mr. Arun K. Sharma with Mr. Alok Misra, North Central Railway, Allahabad, for the Petitioners; Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for passengers to possess the specific identity cards prescribed in the E-ticket and the justification for refund of penalty charges. The court also emphasized the need for proper consideration of identity cards and noted errors in the allowance of compensation and litigation costs.
Headnote:
Consumer Fora - Jurisdiction - E-ticket - Identity Card - Refund of Penalty - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21, Section 24] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora in entertaining complaints related to E-tickets, the requirement of valid identity cards for travel, and the refund of penalty charges. It emphasized that passengers must possess the specific identity cards prescribed in the ticket and that the Consumer Fora's jurisdiction for such complaints was kept open. The court also addressed the refund of penalty charges and the erroneous allowance of compensation and litigation costs.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a senior citizen and advocate, booked a train ticket which was later cancelled due to heavy fog. He purchased another ticket but was charged a penalty for not possessing the required identity card. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the refund of various amounts, including penalty charges, compensation, and litigation costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was not in possession of the required identity card and thus the penalty charges were justified. It also noted errors in the refund of certain amounts and the dismissal of the appeal by the State Commission.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora, Validity of Identity Card, Refund of Penalty Charges, Compensation and Litigation Costs
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Consumer Fora's jurisdiction for entertaining complaints related to E-tickets was kept open. It emphasized that passengers must possess the specific identity cards prescribed in the ticket and that the refund of penalty charges was justified. The court also noted errors in the allowance of compensation and litigation costs.
Final Decision: The revision petition was partly allowed, modifying the orders of the State Commission and District Forum. The petitioner was directed to refund the penalty amount and pay the cost for condonation of delay within a specified timeframe.
ORDER
Mr. Justice K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against order dated 31.12.2014 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. U.P. (in Short 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 2052/2013, General Manager, North Central Railway & Anr. v. Shri Pati Singh by which, appeal was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is a senior citizen and an Advocate booked his ticket on 18.1.2010 in sleeper class by Kanshi Vishwanath Train from New Delhi to Varanasi for 25.1.2010. When he reached station on 25.1.2010, he came to know that the train had been cancelled due to heavy fog. He returned back to his home and after great efforts he got E-ticket for 26.1.2010 in Shiv Ganga Express train Coach No. 7, Berth No. L-12 from Delhi to Varanasi. OP No. 2/Petitioner No. 2 ticket examiner came and asked about the ticket and ID Card. He had shown ID Card which was not accepted by OP No. 2 and asked for penalty. It was further pleaded that OP No. 2 called Police force and forcibly thrown him out of the train at Kanpur Station along with bag on account of which, his spects were broken. On the request of other passengers, he was allowed to travel in the train subject to payment of penalty and he paid penalty amount. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction, to entrain complaint. It was further submitted that because of heavy fog train coming from Varanasi to New Delhi came very late, so, train was cancelled and whole charge of ticket without any deduction was refunded to the complainant. It was admitted that complainant purchased another ticket for travelling on 26.1.2010, but he did not bring any of the valid identity cards as mentioned in the ticket, so, penalty was charged. It was admitted that OP No. 2 intimated to Commercial Controller, Kanpur on phone on which checking staff and RP Force came at Kanpur railway station. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs. 350 pertaining to earlier ticket cancelled, Rs. 263 for purchasing E-ticket. Rs. 483 charged as penalty. Rs. 1,000 for loss of profession, Rs. 5,000 for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation with 7% p.a. interest. Both parties, filed appeals before State commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed both the appeals against which, this revision petition has been filed by petitioner along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. As per office report there was delay of 74 days in filing revision petition, but later on Registry submitted that revision petition be treated to be filed on 6.4.2015 and this Bench observed that this date could not be correct, as revision petition was filed later on; so, petitioner was directed to file application for condonation of delay in pursuance to which he has filed application for condonation of delay. In this application, it was mentioned that revision petition was filed on 6.4.2015 against Diary No. (Blank), so. revision petition is within limitation. We do not find any endorsement of receipt of revision petition on 6 4.2015 and accompanied affidavit has been sworn on 4.5.2015 hence, it cannot be treated that revision petition was filed on 6.4.2015, but it has been filed on 18.6.2015 and in such circumstances; there is delay in filing revision petition. Petitioner has not given Diary No. by which, revision petition was filed on 6.4.2015, in such circumstances, it may be held that revision petition has been filed with delay, but looking to amount involved in the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to condone delay subject to payment of cost and dela
