D.O.F. 09.12.2009

                                                                                                                           D.O.O. 30.05.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K. Gopalan                :       President

                                      Smt. K.P. Preethakumari :       Member

Smt. M.D. Jessy               :       Member

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2011.

C.C.No.324/2009

M.P. Sunder Raj,

S/o. Late Krishnan,

Febina Villa, Pallithazhe,                                     :         Complainant

P.O. Chirakkara,

Thalassery 

(Rep. by Adv. P. Dilesh Kumar)

1.  Chief Booking Supervisor,

     Southern Railway,

     Coimbatore Booking Office,

     Coimbatore P.O.

2.  Renuka Devi,

     Ticket Examiner,

     C/o. Divisional General Manager,                            :         Opposite Parties

     Southern Railway, Palghat Division,

     Palghat P.O.   

3.  Divisonal Commercial Manager,

     Palghat Division, Southern Railway,

     P.O. Palghat

(Rep. by Adv. T. Ramakrishnan)

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 10,000 towards the claim amount and to refund ` 323 as excess fare with cost of this proceedings.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : Complainant purchased 4 sleeper tickets to travel with family from Coimbatore to Thalassery on 17.08.2009.  Complainant being a senior citizen was charged ` 65 and other ticket wise charged ` 118 each.  When the train left coimbatore station 2^nd opposite party approached and asked to show his ticket.  On perusing the ticket 2^nd opposite party loudly told the  complainant that the word ‘sleeper’ is not imprinted/typed by 1^st opposite party.  She demanded original fare and excess fare totaling an amount of 323.  When complainant told 2^nd opposite party that he is a senior citizen and entitled for the concession showing electoral identity card 2^nd opposite party arrogantly retorted that she do not want to see the identity card or other documents and if excess money is not paid he has to get down from the train.  2^nd opposite party insulted the complainant infront of all the other passengers and thereby caused mental agony and pain.  The collection of excess amount by 2^nd opposite party is clearly a deficiency in service.    Complainant sent lawyer notice to opposite parties.  3^rd opposite party sent a false and incorrect reply.  Hence this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite parties appeared and version filed for and on behalf of all opposite parties, which in brief is stated as follows : On 17.08.2009 during checking it was found that the complainant was traveling in the sleeper class coach, with a two second class express ticket.  For traveling sleeper class coach, sleeper class ticket has to be purchased.  2^nd class is lower class to sleeper class. So checking official requested the complainant to remit the difference of fare.   Since the complainant was traveling with an irregular ticket the complainant was liable to pay the excess fare of 250 as per the rules.  Travelling with a lower class ticket in a higher class is treated as traveling without ticket.  Therefore, in addition to the difference of fare between 2^nd class express and sleeper class, the excess fare as per the rules was collected from the complainant.  Realising the fact complainant remitted the amount.  Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.         

(1)           Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

(2)           Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

(3)           Relief and cost.

Evidence consists of oral testimony of complainant as PW1, PW2, DW1, Ext.A1 to A9 and Ext.B1 to B3.

Issues 1 to 3:

          Admittedly complainant and his family was traveling from Coimbatore to Thalassery.  During the travel 2^nd opposite party approached complainant and on checking it was found that the  complainant was having lower class ticket and thereby collected difference of fare as well as excess fare from complainant. 

The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased ticket for travel from Coimbatore to Thalassery on 17.08.2009 in Chennai-Mangalore Egmore Express. The complainant being senior citizen was charged 65 for the ticket by the opposite party and paid 118 for other three tickets.  During checking complainant showed all the tickets.  On perusing the ticket 2^nd opposite party loudly told the complainant that there is no imprint of sleeper in his ticket so complainant has to pay the original fare and excess fare.  The concerned official behaved rudely, when he submitted that since he is a senior citizen deserve for concession showing identity etc.  He also threatened and asked to get down from the train if he is not ready to pay the excess amount.   Finally to avoid further problems complainant paid the amount.

Opposite party on the other hand contended that complainant was traveling with an irregular ticket and hence the complainant was liable to pay the excess fare.  For traveling in sleeper class coach, sleeper class ticket has to be purchased.  Complainant was traveling in sleeper class coach with only a 2^nd class ticket,  which is lower class to sleeper class.  As per rules traveling with a lower class ticket in a higher class is treated as traveling without ticket.  Hence complainant is liable to pay difference of fare as well as excess fare as per rules.  Opposite party collected charges as per rules and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

It can be seen that the complainant was traveling with a second class Express ticket in sleeper class.  In Ext.A3 and A4 ‘sleeper’ is recorded whereas Ext.A2 sleeper is not recorded.  Hence there is substance in the contention of opposite party that A2 is not meant for travel in sleeper compartment.  Hence a passenger who holds a ticket with such imprint of sleeper is only intended to travel in sleeper coach.  Section 55 Prohibits the entry and traveling in any carriage without proper pass or ticket.  Herein the complainant is having only a second class Express ticket  but traveling in sleeper class.  In the strict sense as per law complainant is not entitled to travel in sleeper coach.  But it has to be considered that complainant was traveling with his family.  He is a senior citizen.  A prudent man cannot believe a passenger like the complainant traveled in sleeper coach with an intention to cheat Railway.  The above said rules are made to prevent fraud.  The circumstances that is brought to light before the Forum undoubtedly make it clear that the complainant has no fraudulent intention to cheat Railway.  Then arose the question where the mistake is happened.  It has become a practice to forget the ground reality on critical moment and embrace the technicality departing from moral duty of extending the hands for assistance and help and to be proud of exerting rules creating a haste situation.  The complaint, a senior citizen deserves for spot assistance and help since he was innocent and  unaware of the class of ticket.  The situation reveals in the ordinary course leads to assume that the mistake is done by the employee of opposite party while issuing the ticket.  It is quite understandable that when a person travelling with his family he alone will not, at any cost, will take a different class whether high or lower.  Law for the sake of law will break the legs that stop the walk.  We are living in society giving much preference to family and so also respect aged persons.  This great tradition of our society cannot be ignored in the official dealings especially wherein a total remedy is possible.  The official dealings in this case cannot be appreciated whatever may be the sanctity of rules and technicality that is depended on.  If there is an element of fraud on the part of complainant he is not deserving for any sort of lieniency.  The situation is very clear that the complainant herein was not aware of this mistake till it was pointed out.  Ultimately the case of the opposite party, as he deposed in cross examination is that  “  Cu case-Â senior citizen F¶v mention sN¿m-ª-Xn-\m-emWv Rm³ fine CuSm-¡n-bXv”.  The case in short is non-mentioning of senior citizen.  It is a fact that complainant is holding the identity card with him.  Opposite party has no case that he is not having identity card.  The officer concerned can easily assume the situation how does the mistake occurred.  It is not the truth guided him but the technicality of rules and regulations.

          In a travel with a family this old man would have embarrassed like anything under such situation.  The face of law towards this person and that of  fraudulent person is not one and the same.  It is wonderful to see the ticket examiner could not understand whether he was traveling with his family or not.  1^st opposite party admitted that “]me-¡mSv Ignª tijT  A\-ym-b-¡m-c³  4 tickets ImWn¨p X¶p.”  Then it is a matter of common sense to understand he is traveling with his family.  So also it is very important to note that opposite party did not produce any document pertaining to the reservation of the ticket.  Atleast request letter for reservation could have been produced so as to prove that latches committed on the side of complainant. Mechanical application of law, rules and regulation deserves no appreciation.  A law abiding citizen in his long past life cannot be considered committed a violation of rules of Railway for such a benefit of small amount but it is only a mistake for which the employee of the opposite party is primarily responsible.   Hence we find that opposite party is liable to refund the excess amount.  Considering the mental suffering of complainant we hold that complainant is entitled to get an amount of ` 2000 as compensation.  Complainant is also is entitled for an amount of ` 1,000 as cost of this proceedings.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund the excess amount ` 250 (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) and to pay an amount of ` 2000 (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation together with an amount of ` 1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation within one month from the date of receiving the order failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order after the expiry of one month as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

                     Sd/-                        Sd/-                         Sd/-

       President                  Member                    Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Copy of identity card of complainant

A2 to A4.  Railway tickets

A5.  Copy of lawyer notice dated 22.08.09.

A5 (a) (b) (c) series : Postal receipts and AD cards.

A6. Letter dated 15.09.2009.

A7.  Copy of lawyer notice dated 08.09.09.

A7 (a)(b) : Postal receipt & AD card.

A8.  Railway excess fare ticket

A9.  Railway ticket

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.  Copy of Section 55 of Railway Act, 1989.

B2.  Copy of Section 138 2(a) of Railway Act, 1989.

B3.  Copy of circular dated 15.06.2004.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant.

PW2.  Chandri

Witness examined for the opposite party

DW1. P. Renuka Devi

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT