Sham Sunder (Retd.), President:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:-
œ For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OP is directed :-
i) To make payment of an amount of Rs.6880/- spent by the complainant on travelling and allied expenses from Chandigarh to Delhi and back on 27.11.2010 and 28.11.2010.
ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment, mental agony and inconvenience caused to him.
iii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the amounts mentioned at S.No.(i) and (ii) of the para aforesaid shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint, till its realization, besides costs of litigation, as mentioned above?.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 09.11.2010, the complainant, in order to go for a Picnic to Alwar, booked an e-ticket of FQ 001 “Gairy Queen Special Train, for 27.11.2010, through the website of IRCTC. The tickets for the journey from Chandigarh to Delhi and return journey from Delhi to Chandigarh, were also got booked through the website. It was stated that on reaching Delhi, the complainant contacted the Railway Station Authorities, which told him, that the said Fairy Queen Services were not ready for the season. It was further stated that the Railway Officials, at Delhi expressed surprise, as to how, the ticket for the Picnic Tour Train, was issued by the concerned Authorities. It was further stated that the Station Superintendent, at Delhi Cantt. (N.R.), also issued a certificate, to the effect, that the Fairy Queen Train, for the season 2010-11 had not yet started. Thereafter, the complainant had to return to Chandigarh, without undertaking the said journey. Thereafter, the matter was taken up with the Opposite Party, who, in turn, refunded an amount of Rs.10,200/-, which was paid for the said booking.
3. It was further stated that there was wrong facilitation of Picnic Tour “ Ticket Booking, on the website of IRCTC, whereas, the said services were not actually available and the rolling stock was also not ready for the season 2010-11. It was further stated that, no communication, was sent by the Opposite Party, either by e-mail or by mobile set, to the complainant, that the services aforesaid, for 27th Nov., 2010 were not available. It was further stated that, even in the e-mail dated 29.11.2010, the Opposite Party had not apologized for the inconvenience, caused to the complainant, and it was only stated that the amount of Rs.10,200/-, on account of the cancellation of ticket had been refunded.
4. It was further stated that the refund, aforesaid, had been made on 29.11.2010 i.e. after the completion of to and fro journey by the complainant, from Chandigarh to Delhi and back, on 27th and 28th Nov., 2010. It was further stated that on account of the aforesaid acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party, the complainant underwent a tremendous mental agony and physical harassment, as also suffered financial loss. The complainant requested the Opposite Party, to pay him the fare, which was spent by him, for going to Delhi and coming back, as also compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency, in rendering service. On the final refusal of the Opposite Party, to redress the grievance of the complaint, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party, to pay a sum of Rs.6,878.61 incurred by him, towards various expenses during travelling from Chandigarh to Delhi and back, alongwith interest @21% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint till realization; compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, for mental agony, physical harassment, as also financial loss; and cost of litigation.
5. The Opposite Party, in his written statement, admitted that the complainant booked the ticket, in question, online, for the package journey, commencing from Delhi. It was stated that the said package was booked, by the complainant, on 09.11.2010, by generating/using I.P.address 203.90.114.163 of which complete description was Bangalore, Karnataka, India, HCL, infinet Limited. It was further stated that since the booking of ticket was made at Bangalore, and no other cause of action arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further stated that the complainant did not fall within the definition of a consumer, as he booked the said ticket online, only on invitation given by the National Rail Museum, in collaboration with the Ministry of Railways. It was further stated that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was only a facilitator/service provider for booking of package ticket, online, whereas the package of Fairy Queen Special Train was formulated, marketed and operated by the National Rail Museum and Ministry of Railways, without his (Opposite Party) indulgence. It was further stated that, at the time of booking, the complainant had given his contact mobile No.9944860092, and, as such, he was duly intimated about the cancellation of the train, on the said number. It was further stated that the said mobile/contact number was of someone having connection of Airtel India of Tamil Nadu Telecom Circle. It was further stated that the complainant had not approached the District Forum with clean hands, and, on the other hand, had suppressed the material facts because the full amount of the online package ticket i.e. Rs.10,200/-, was refunded to him, immediately on 29.11.2010, without any deductions. It was denied that any mental agony or physical harassment was caused to the complainant, on account of the alleged acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Party. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor he indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. In his rejoinder, by way of affidavit, the complainant pleaded that the I.P address was of Bangalore because the central server of the bank was in Bangalore (Head Office). It was stated that the complainant had booked the tickets from his office computer, at Canara Bank, Chandigarh, and the journey commenced from Chandigarh as per Enclosure 8. It was further stated that the complainant had also produced the documents Annexures 14 to 16, about his posting at Chandigarh. It was further stated that the mobile number of the complainant was of Tamil Nadu, as he originally belonged to Tamil Nadu and was having connection of Tamil Nadu circle. It was further stated that the complainant was never informed about the cancellation of the train, on mobile number aforesaid.
7. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
8. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
10. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that since the tickets were booked online, at Bangalore, and no cause of action arose to the complainant, at Chandigarh, as such, the District Forum, at Chandigarh, had no territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. Admittedly, the ticket for the said tour was booked on 09.11.2010, online, by the complainant. At the time of booking of the said ticket on 09.11.2010, the complainant was working as Chief Manager at Canara Bank, Chandigarh. Copy of the driving licence Annexure 16 was produced by the complainant, wherefrom, it was established that his address at that time was #764/B, Sector 44-A, Canara Bank Apartments, Chandigarh. The certificate Annexure 15 of the Senior Manager of Canara Bank, Chandigarh, also established that Sri Suresh Kumar M (52095) Chief Manager, had attended the Circle Office, at Chandigarh, on 09.11.2010, and was marked present. Copy of the Annual Performance Review (ARR) Report Annexure 14 also established that the complainant remained posted at Circle Office, Chandigarh, from 16.07.2008 to 07.05.2011. In the replication, it was the specific plea of the complainant that he had booked the tickets, from his office computer of Canara Bank, at Chandigarh, and the journey from Chandigarh to Delhi also commenced from Chandigarh. The IP address was of Bangalore, because the central server of the bank was in Bangalore. From the IP address by Russ Smith of Consumer.Net March 29, 1997, produced by the Counsel for the Opposite Party, it was not proved that the ticket of Fairy Queen could not be got booked online, by the complainant, from Chandigarh, through the central server of Head Office of his bank at Bangalore. No material was also produced, on record, to substantiate that the commands could not be fired from Chandigarh and accessed at Bangalore. Even, in the abstract of IP address produced by the Opposite Party, during arguments, before the District Forum, it was mentioned that if a proxy sits between the users and the internet all of the users, appear to come from one computer. In these cases, users can only trace, as far as the proxy, unless additional information is known. In the instant case, there was no reason to doubt the plea of the complainant, that he had booked the tickets, from his office computer of Canara Bank, at Chandigarh. Clear-cut explanation was furnished, with regard to the IP address, as stated above. Since, the complainant was posted as Chief Manager at Canara Bank, Chandigarh; he attended the office on the relevant day and his presence was marked, in the office, on the day, when the ticket was booked, by him, at Chandigarh; the journey was to start from Chandigarh; and he undertook the same, therefrom, it could certainly be said that cause of action arose to him (complainant), to file a complaint at Chandigarh. The District Forum, at Chandigarh, therefore, had territorial Jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
12. It was next submitted the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of National Rail Museum and Ministry of Railways, as necessary parties, on the ground, that the Opposite Party was only a facilitator/service provider and the package of Fairy Queen Special Train was formulated and operated by it (National Rail Museum and Ministry of Railways) without any indulgence, on the part of the Opposite Party. The tickets were booked at Chandigarh, by the complainant, through the Opposite Party. The fare was paid by the complainant, to the Opposite Party, at the time of booking the package. There was, therefore, a privity of contract, between the complainant, and the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is also a part and parcel of the Indian Railways. If there was no co-ordination, between the different departments/wings of the Indian Railways, the complainant was not required to suffer for the same. Since, there was no privity of contract, between the complainant and the National Rail Museum and Ministry of Railways, in our considered opinion, they were not the necessary parties, for adjudication of the controversy, in the complaint. As stated above, since there was a privity of contract between the complainant and the Opposite Party, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
13. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, that the complainant was informed, on the mobile phone, that the train had been cancelled. However, this submission of the Counsel for the appellant does not appear to be correct. No SMS message, or call details record, was produced, on the record, to prove that actually the complainant was informed on his mobile phone, with regard to the cancellation of train, before he actually undertook the journey, from Chandigarh to Delhi. There is also no document, on the record, showing that the complainant was intimated with regard to the cancellation of journey, before he actually undertook the same, from Chandigarh to Delhi. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, to the effect that the complainant was informed about cancellation of the journey/train, on his mobile phone, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the complainant knowing fully well that the train had been cancelled, unnecessarily undertook the journey, from Chandigarh to Delhi, and back, with a view to claim the fare. He further submitted that even no documentary evidence, was produced on record, as to what amount of fare, was spent by the complainant for undertaking the journey, from Chandigarh to Delhi. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not appear to be correct. Since, no evidence was produced by the Opposite Party, to the effect that the complainant was informed before 27.11.2010, when the journey was to be undertaken, by him, from Chandigarh to Delhi, regarding cancellation of the train, he undertook the said journey. It was proved from the tickets Annexures 8 and 9, that the complainant travelled from Chandigarh to Delhi and returned on 28.11.2010. The email at enclosures 3 to 5 shows that the complainant was not informed, about the cancellation of the train, otherwise, he would not have gone to Delhi, on 27.11.2010. Though, as per written statement of the Opposite Party, and email, the complainant had received the refund of Rs.10,200/-, after cancellation of the ticket, on 29.11.2010, yet, the fact remains that he had to face unnecessary travel, mental agony, physical harassment, and also inconvenience. It is evident, from Enclosure 4, sent by Mr.V.N.Shukla, AM “ Tourism, IRCTC, to the complainant, that he regretted that despite informing the Authorities about the cancellation, he did not get the information regarding cancellation of the train, and reached Delhi Cantt. Railway Station. Therefore, he informed the complainant that the staff was counselled to be more responsive, towards the work assigned, and ensure that the information is communicated to the clients, by phone, as well as by email, for further bookings. The reply sent by Mr.V.N.Shukla itself proved deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party. Since, the complainant undertook the journey from Chandigarh to Delhi and back, on account of deficiency, in rendering service, by the Opposite Party, he was rightly awarded the amount of Rs.6878.61Ps., incurred by him, on his fare, for the same (said journey).
15. The next question, that falls for consideration, is, as whether, the compensation awarded by the District Forum, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- for unnecessary travel, undertaken by the complainant, as also mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him, is just, adequate and reasonable, or on the higher side. It may be stated here, that the compensation is required to be granted, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the mental agony and physical harassment, suffered and the injustice caused to the complainant. In our considered opinion, compensation, in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, awarded by the District Forum, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be excessive, unreasonable, or on the higher side. It, on the other hand, could be said to be reasonable and adequate. No ground, whatsoever is, thus, made out to reduce the amount of compensation, awarded by the District Forum.
16. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
19. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.