Date of filing:-21/12/2017.                                                                                                                                                                                                               Date of Order:-01/05/2023.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

B A R G A R H.

Consumer Complaint No. 66 of 2017.

Pradip Kumar Mahapatra, aged bout 55 years, Son of Late Gouri Shankar Mahapatra, Occupation. Advocate, Resident of W.No. 4, Talipara, Po/Ps/Th./District. Bargarh-768028.

                                                                                                                                      Complainant.

V e r s u s

1. The General Manager, East Coast Railway, Rail Sadan, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar 751017, District. Khurda (Odisha).
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Waltiar Division, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam-530004.
3. The Station Master, Bargarh Road Railway Station, At/Po/Dist. Bargarh (Odisha). Pin. 768028.
4. Mr. S.V.B.S.V. Ganesh, TTI/VSKP (Amenities), East Coast Railway, Waltair Division, Vishakhapatnam 530004 (Andhra Pradesh).

                                                                                                       Opposite Parties.                         

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-                             :-   :- Sri S.K. Pradhan, Advocate and  Associates.

For the Opposite Parties  No.1,2,3 and 4 :-   :- Sri Rabi Narayan Dash, Advocate.

                                                -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra            .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....         .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.01/05/2023.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant decided to go to Chennai on 24^th day of January 2017. The Complainant applied for reservation of train ticket in advance for six persons on 15^th day of December 2016 in Tata Allepy Express and obtained the same on payment of consideration. In advertently the age of the Complainant has been wrongly mentioned in the train ticket as 48 (forty eight) instead of 54  (fifty four) years. During their journey the T.T.I along with one railway police near Visakhapatnam station asked for identification proof of the Complainant and his family members which was duly supplied to the T.T.I. The TTI did not dispute the identity of the Complainant and his other family members. The T.T.I. demanded money for settlement saying that the train ticket of the Complainant is invalid one as the age of the Complainant has been reflected as 48 years through he is aged about 54 years. The Complainant protested such illegal demand of money by the T.T.I. The T.T.I. thereafter imposed penalty of Rs. 1000/-(Rupees one thousand)only on the Complainant for such mistake of age of the Complainant. The T.T.I. pressed for payment for which the Complainant paid Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand)_only towards penalty against due receipt through he has committed no wrong. The Conduct of the T.T.I. is nothing but amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. The case of the Opposite Parties is that  Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.4 filed their version. Opposite Party No.4 the T.T.I. submitted that whatever he has done during the course of  Employment on behalf of Union of India. The Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the T.T.I. has never committed any act of deficiency in service. He has acted as per rule and has duly imposed fine for the wrong Committed by the Complainant.  Further the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the penalty levied is as per statutory rules and regulations via section 137, 138 and section 142 read with section 55 of the Railway Act 1989. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed for dismissal of the case.

3.  Perused the records and it reveals that the Complainant had taken train ticket for six persons including himself. The Only mistake in the ticket is that the age of the Complainant is reflected 48 years instead of 54 years. The T.T.I. during the course of checking imposed Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand)only penalty on the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.2 submitted that penalty is imposed as per rule and regulation of Railway Act under section 137, 138 and 144 read with section 55 of the Railway Act 1989. Section 55 of the Railway Act says  No person shall enter or remain in any carriage on a railway for the purpose of travelling therein as a passanger unless he has with him a proper pass or ticket or obtained permission of a railway servant authorized in this behalf for such travel. Section 137 and section 138 of Railway Act 1989 provides for penalty in respect of fraudulently  travelling or attempt to travel without proper pass or ticket and levy of excess charge and fare for such travelling or attempt to travel or travel beyond authorized distance.  Section 142 says:-

1. If any person not being a railway servant or an agent authorized in this behalf.

1. Sells or attempts to sell any ticket or any half of a return ticket, or
2. Parts or attempts to part with the possession of a ticket against which reservation of a seat or berth has been made or any half of a return ticket or a season ticket, in order to enable any other person to travel therewith, he shall be punishable with imprisonment.

There is no provision in all these sections 137, 138, 142 and 55 regarding imposition of penalty on age ground. Reflection of age in the ticket may be a  typical error, but the TTI has imposed penalty and said the ticket of the Complainant is invalid one. Here is the question arises that whether the TTI is the authority to say a ticket is valid or invalid. The TTI is not the authority to say a ticket is invalid. In his cross examination the  TTI admitted that the Complainant has not availed any other facilities showing the age difference and there will be no difference in fare of the train in such difference in age circumstances. According to the deposition of TTI the Complainant has not availed any facilities showing age difference. The TTI has imposed penalty on illegal ground and accordingly held liable for deficiency in service. For the act of TTI the railway department is also. Held liable. Accordingly all the Opposite Parties are deficient in their service.

            As per supra discussion the following Order is passed.

                                                  O R D E R

The Complaint is allowed on contest. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable and directed to refund Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand)only with 9% interest P.A. w.e.f. 24/01/2017.

            Further the Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expences to the Complainant within one month of this order. Failing which the entire amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realization.

Order pronounced in open court on this  1^st   day of  May 2023.

            Supply free copies to the parties.  

      Typed to my dictation

                                                                                          and corrected by me.                                                                                            

                   I  agree/-                                                                       

       ( Smt. Anju Agrawal )                                                                  ( Jigeesha Mishra )

              Dt.01/05/2023                                                                            Dt.01/05/2023

              M e m b e r  (w)                                                                        P r e s i d e n t.