Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/58/2022

The Divisional Railways Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Birendera Kumar Paswan - Opp.Party(s)

Vaneet Mittal & Amit Gupta Adv.

09 Jun 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	58 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	19.05.2022
Date of Order	:	09.06.2022

 

1. The Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
2. The Station Master, Northern Railway, Industrial Area I, Daria, Chandigarh.

Second address

Northern Railway, SCO No.34, Madhya Marg, Sector
7-C, Chandigarh 160002.

3. Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi through its General Manager.

…..Appellants /Opposite Parties.

Versus

Birendera Kumar Paswan son of Shri Gurdev Paswan, resident of #350, Village Kajheri, Sector 52, UT, Chandigarh.

Permanent Address :

Village Makdoga Thakrimatti, Tiari (65), Chamba, Himachal Pradesh-176308.

                                                … Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Vaneet Mittal, Advocate for the appellants.

 

PER  PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the Opposite Parties against impugned order dated 04.04.2022, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (District Commission), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint No.904 of 2019 against the Opposite Parties, with the following directions: -

“8.    In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹4,820/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. the date of journey i.e. 25.8.2019 till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹1,000/-  to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹1,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2.              The brief facts of the case are that the complainant booked two train tickets of DBRT Rajdhani Express (one in his name and other in the name of his mother Smt. Ranjan Devi) - from Katihar Jn to New Delhi on 25.08.2019 and paid an amount of Rs.4820/-.  It was stated that when the complainant alongwith his mother arrived at Railway Station, New Delhi on 25.08.2019, he was stopped by the Chief Ticket Collector (employee of Opposite Party No.3) and asked to show the railway ticket in original, to which, he said that the tickets were booked through reservation and showed all the relevant documents & proofs but still the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.5150/- for no fault on his part. Hence, the complaint.

3.             In their written statement, the Opposite Parties admitted regarding booking of the tickets and submitted that as per statement of TTE/Dinesh Chand, who was on duty in the said train No.12423 on 25.08.2019, the complainant failed to produce “original ticket” for journey, despite giving sufficient time and as per railway rules, if anyone travelling by train fails to produce the original ticket, penalty is imposed for the same. It was stated that since the complainant failed to produce the original tickets, therefore, penalty charges were rightly recovered from him and receipt of the same was issued, as such, there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4.             We have heard Counsel for the appellants at the preliminary stage and perused the record.

5.             Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties has submitted that the District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that as per railway rules, the passenger has to produce/show the original ticket as and when directed by the official concern but the respondent/complainant failed to do so, as such, penalty was imposed upon, therefore, there is no irregularity, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

6.             After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by Counsel for the appellants, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal filed by the Opposite Parties is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

7.             The sole point for consideration before us is as to whether the District Commission rightly passed the impugned order. The answer, to this question, is in the affirmative. It is not in dispute that on 25.08.2019 the complainant booked two train tickets in his name and also in the name of his mother by paying the amount of Rs.4820/-, as is evident from Annexure C-1. The respondent/complainant also annexed Annexure C-2 alongwith the complaint, which shows that the complainant failed to produce the original tickets, due to which, penalty of Rs.5150/- was imposed. The plea taken by the complainant in his complaint that during travel he showed all the relevant documents/proof to the officials of the Opposite Parties to confirm that he had purchased the ticket. The plea taken by the appellants that as per railway rules, the passenger has to produce/show the original ticket as and when directed by the official concerned but the respondent/complainant failed to do so, as such, penalty was rightly imposed upon him. Even perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that there is no dispute that the appellants/Opposite Parties rightly recovered penalty from the complainant because he did not have original ticket while travelling. Moreover, it is the admitted fact that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.4820/- for purchase of two train tickets, which was received by the Opposite Parties. Even after receipt of the amount of Rs.4820/- for tickets and thereafter by charging of fine of Rs.5150/- from the same person i.e. complainant and that too of the 100% of the cost of ticket, is nothing but an unfair trade practice, especially when the passenger was genuine as he was allowed to board the train when he was not having original tickets. So, we are of the view that the District Commission rightly held that the act of the Opposite Parties for charging twice for the same travel from the same consumer i.e. complainant, proves deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

8.             For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality. Hence, the appeal filed by the Opposite Parties, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Commission is upheld.

9.             Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

10.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

09.06.2022                                                                      Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Sd/-

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER