Mere Error In Quoting Section Of Appeal Does Not Invalidate Substance Of Matter, West Bengal State Commission Remands Matter Back To District Commission

Brief Facts:

Mr Arindam Goswami (“Complainant”) booked a ticket from IRCTC for returning to Alipurduar from Rampurghat on 23.09.2023. After reaching the Rampurghat station, he came to know from the enquiry counter that the train had been diverted and would run via the Nabadwip section. The Complainant requested the station master to provide for alternate arrangements by making a reservation in some other train however, the station master conveyed his inability to do so. Consequently, the Complainant tried getting a refund for the ticket from Rampurghat Station but the request was refused on the basis that the reservation was made by the IRCTC and the concerned train operated under the 'Sealdah' Division. The Complainant then tried to seek a refund online. However, it was rejected by showing that the concerned train had not diverted. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alipurduar (“District Commission”) against the Divisional Railway Manager and Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager of Sealdah division (Eastern Railway).

The Managers contended that due to some ongoing relaying system work on the tracks, the train had to be diverted. The matter was released in several newspapers, paper notifications and press releases, on Facebook and Instagram handle for the awareness of the passengers. Furthermore, they contended that the train's Ticket Deposit Receipt (TDR) was dealt with by the North-East Frontier Railway and not the Eastern Railway. However, this written version was not filed within 45 days by the railway managers. Thus, the District Commission proceeded against them ex-parte and ruled in favour of the Complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the Railway Managers filed an appeal in the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Siliguri Circuit Bench (“State Commission”).

The Complainant contested the appeal by submitting that the Railway Managers ought to have filed the appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, they filed the appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1956, which no more governs the matter.

Observations of the Commission:

The State Commission noted that a mere error in quoting the section of appeal does not invalidate the substance of the matter. Further reliance was placed on the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (Civil Appeal no. 10941-10942 of 2013), wherein the Supreme Court held that Consumer Commissions have the power to extend the limitation period for filing the written version.

The State Commission further noted the willingness of the Railway Managers to contest the matter before the District Commission again. Thus, the matter was remanded back to the District Commission for a full trial and the impugned order against the Railway Managers was set aside.

Case Title: The Divisional Railway Manager, Sealdah and Anr. vs Arindam Goswami

Case No.: First Appeal No. A/46/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: N.A.

Advocate for the Respondent: N.A.