STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 17.12.2018 Date of final hearing: 07.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 APPEAL NO.1344 OF 2018 IN THE MATTER OF Naresh Chand son of Sh. Pyare Lal R/o Bas Sitab Rai, Rewari.

….Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. Indian Railway and catering Tourism Ltd. Through its Chief Managing Director Rail Yatri Niwas Building, New Delhi Railway Station Complex Ajmeri Gate side, New Delhi-110002

2. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

….Respondents/Opposite Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN, PRESIDENT MS. MANJULA, MEMBER Present: None for the appellant PER: T.P.S. MANN, J.

ORDER

1. The complainant, namely, Naresh Chand has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari whereby complaint preferred by him under Section 12 of the Act was dismissed.

2. According to the complainant, he is a senior citizen and booked tickets from Jaipur to Ujjain on 06.05.2016 for the journey dated 12.05.2016 to visit Singhest Mahakumbh at Ujjain. He intended to visit Mahakumbh with his wife and his son and an amount of Rs.1945.80 was paid which was equivalent to confirmed ticket fare. When the complainant reached Jaipur from Rewari for his journey hoping that the seat will be confirmed, he found that the ticket was not confirmed and TTE (Traveling Ticket Examiner) told him that the ticket was purchased through IRCTC and thus he was not entitled to travel on a waiting ticket. This was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as he had paid more amount for the tickets through IRCTC and no prior intimation was given by the railway or IRCTC about the non confirmation of the seat. The ticket was cancelled without his consent and they returned only Rs.1705/- instead of Rs.1945.80. Hence, the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.95,000/- for deficiency in service and harassment.

3. Upon notice, the opposite parties did not appear before the District Consumer Forum despite service and they were accordingly proceeded against ex parte.

4. After hearing counsel for the complainant and on going through the record, the District Consumer Forum did not find any merit in the complaint and accordingly dismissed the same.

5. Aggrieved of the passing of the impugned order, the complainant preferred the present appeal through post to the State Commission.

6. In order to give a chance to the appellant to come and appear in person, notice was issued to him by registered post. However, notice issued to the appellant was received back for want for correct address. On the adjourned date, the State Commission had observed that the complainant was stated to be resident of 6927, Bas Sitab Rai, Rewari but while submitting the appeal through registered post, he had described himself to be resident of Bas Sitab Rai, Rewari. Accordingly, fresh notice was issued to the complainant/appellant at his residence as mentioned on the registered parcel. The District Consumer Forum was also directed to take steps for effecting service upon the appellant. The Registry was also directed to inform the appellant on his mobile number 9996007534. On the adjourned date, the Registry reported that the complainant/appellant had been informed on mobile/telephone. However, fresh notice issued to the appellant was not served upon him. In the interest of justice, the appeal was adjourned. On the next date, letter dated 11.02.2019 was received from the appellant for grant of exemption from personal appearance and for considering additional facts in favour of him in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. On the adjourned date, fresh notice was issued to the appellant through registered post. The Registry reported that the notice issued to the appellant was not received back. However, an application was received from the appellant for gra