DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE NO. 23/2007 Date of filing of the Case: 12.03.2007 Complainant | Opposite Parties | Swaminath Singha, Age 63 S/o. Late Rajbali Singha 83, Bangaltuli Lane, Hyderpur, P.O. & Dist. Malda- Pin- 732101 | 1) | Chief Commercial Manager N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati- 781011. | 2) | Station Master, Khurial Station ( N.F.Rly) P.O. Shiopur, Via Shalmari, Dist. Katihar(Bihar) | | | | | | | | | | |
Present: | 1. | Shri S.K. Chakraborty, President | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | 3. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member |
For the Petitioner : Swaminath Sinha, Himself For the O.P.s Samir Kr. Roy, Advocate Order No. 21 Dt. 27.11.2007 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner on 17.02 2007 purchased three tickets for Khurial Station for the train 611 Up from Malda Town paying Rs. 14/- against each ticket. On 22.02.2007 also the petitioner purchased tickets from Khurial Station paying Rs. 15/- for each ticket for the train 612 Dn though the distance between these two stations is the same. On query the station master / booking clerk told the petitioner that he only obeyed the direction and opinion of the Rly Dept. For that purpose the petitioner made verbal and written representation to the Stn. master of Khurial Stn. and Chief Commercial Manager, N.F. Rly Maligaon but to no effect. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this case praying reliefs as per petition of complaint. Both the O.P.s have filed a joint written version denying therein material allegations contending inter alia that the petitioner is a habitual litigant and he could never be able to prove that he was the bonafide holder of the mentioned tickets. The O.P.s have admitted that ticket nos. 512075 and 43228 were issued from the Rly stations but have challenged bonafide of the petitioner. Station Khurial is situated at the remote corner of Bengal wherein usual correspondence like other established station is not possible and the procedure followed by other stations is not possible and the procedure of delivery of ticket is generally maintained through manual process and out which the inconvenience that has been felt by the passenger has got no legal basis on this score. The very ticket no. 43228 ( pitchboard ticket) that has been supplied from the ticket counter to the petitioner was old printed one and that said print was made at the time when the second class fare was Rs. 15/- for 75 Km. as per Rly tariff. The actual fare of ticket at the current fare rate was collected from the petitioner i.e. Rs. 14 instead of Rs.15 and in the circumstances the prayer is for dismissal of the complaint. From the above facts and circumstances the following points are to be considered for effective disposal of the case:- 1) Whether the service of O.Ps. is found deficient ? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ? :DECISION WITH REASONS: Point No.1 The pertinent question, whether the service of the O.P.s suffers from deficiency is required to be discussed at length taking into consideration the facts and circumstances available on records, from examinations PWs, OPW and written arguments submitted by both the parties. It appears that OPW-1 has stated that ticket No. 43228 was issued by him from Khorial station on 22.02.2007 for journey from Khorial station to Malda Town and fare of Rs. 14 was collected from the passenger although fare Rs.15/- was printed in the ticket. OPW-1 has also admitted that he made no correction of the fare Rs. 14/- in the printed ticket as he got no such authority. OPW-1 has also admitted that he has been serving in the Rly. department for last 14 years. On 12.08.2005 he was posted at Sudhani and he was not aware of Commercial Circular No. 35 of 2005 issued by Ministry of Railways [Railway Board on 12.08.2005 wherein Ministry of Railway decided that 2nd class fares for ordinary passenger train and Mail/Express trains shall be reduced by Re 1/- ( Rupee One Only) for passenger for all distance]. It is mentioned in the aforesaid memo that necessary charges may be incorporated in PRS, manual ticketing system etc. wherever required. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid circular that authority to make necessary correction in the manual ticketing system in respect of charges was given. It further appears incidentally from the cross-examination of OPW-1 that identified Ticket No. 43464 issued on 02.04.2007 ( Ext-3) is a rectified ticket in respect of charges for a journey from Khurial Station to Malda Rly Station wherein Rs. 14/- was collected from the passenger for the above journey and ticket no. 51924223 for a journey from Malda Town to Khurial Station issued on 03.04.2007 from Malda Town Rly Station reveals fare Rs. 13/- ( Annexure –F of written argument of the petitioner). It further appears from the xerox copy of memo no. R.C. No. 29/07 dated 28.03.2007 issued from office of Chief Commercial Manager Maligaon, Gowhati of N.F. Rly that . “ The chargeable basic fares for second class single journey tickets issued in non-suburban sections for travel by ordinary passenger trains and Mail/Express trains……………….shall be reduced by Re 1/- per passenger for all distance.” Thus, Ext-3 evidently establishes that Re 1/- in excess of exact fare for a distance from Khurial station to Malda Town Rly station on 02.04.2007 against ticket no. 43464 was collected by OPW-1 from the passenger as it is incidentally disclosed. It is incumbent on each party to discharge the ‘burden of proof’ which rests upon him. In the instant case the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and has filed ticket nos. 43225 to 43233 ( Ext-1 series) to prove that Rs. 15/- has been paid for each of those tickets on 22.02.2007 for journey from Khurial station to Malda. He has incidentally submitted a Rly. ticket of 02.04.2007 for a journey from Khurial to Malda Town Rly. Stn. for which he has paid Rs. 14/-. It has been discussed at length in the aforesaid paragraphs that for Rly. journey he has paid Re 1/- excess in addition to what was the declared rate chart for 22.02.2007. In view of above the irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that, in the instant case the petitioner has discharged the burden of proof which rests heavily on him. Now, the O.P. cannot be escaped to prove whether he has discharged his onus to the satisfaction of the Forum as to whether he has collected Rs. 14/- for Ext-1 series and whether he has deprived the petitioner from getting his legal right as a citizen and has also collected the aforesaid amount without authority and for personal gain. It has been observed in many occasions in a case like the present one that the alleged act or course of conduct complained of, must be judged not by ideal standards nor in the abstract but against the background of the circumstances in which the act in question of the O.P. was performed and the true test for establishing such fact is on the person, in the present case, the O.P. whether he has discharged his onus. We may reiterate our view expressed hereinabove as also revealed in the commercial circular no. 35/2005 dt. 12.08.2005 that the present O.P. was very much aware that those changes were made effective immediately and specific order therein is “ necessary charges may be incorporated in P.R.S., manual ticketing system SPTMS, UTSs etc. whenever required.” The word ‘may’ in this case be treated as ‘must’ in view of the spirit of such order as this is beneficial to the large number of passengers. This being the position the O.P. was being under his legal obligation to charge Rs. 14/- for each ticket issued on 22.02.2007. Mere plea that he was not aware of such circular shall not exempt him from his legal responsibility. Accepting for the sake of argument ( though not conceded to) that the O.P. used to collect Rs. 14/- prior to 01.04.2007, this O.P. has failed to file any documentary evidence in this respect which gives this Forum an opportunity to hold that the O.P. has failed to discharge the onus lying heavily on him. Mere filing of one xerox copy of report regarding collection of fare cannot but be an eyewash having no basis to rely on it nor any reliance has also been placed on it by ld.advocate on behalf of the O.Ps. In this connection it may also be reiterated that the O.P. has wilfully suppressed the fact of acquisition of knowledge of the Circular No. 35/2005 dt. 12.08.2005 because according to his own admission as OPW-1 that he is in Rly. service for last 14 years and this gives the Forum an opportunity to draw adverse presumption against him when he has collected Rs. 15/- for such tickets for days together giving least respect to the Rly Circular of 2005. Viewed against the backdrop of the settled position of law as discussed in the forgoing paragraphs and the facts and circumstances of the case as revealed by the evidence adduced by both the parties and the documents placed before us and in view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove that the acts and deeds of O.P. No.2 in respect of issuance of tickets to the Rlys passengers at least on 22.02.2007 cannot but be treated as sheer deficiency on the part of the O.P. No.2. Before parting with this point we would like to add that in no way O.P. No.1 can be held responsible for the wrongful act of O.P. No. 2. This point is thus disposed of. In this connection it would not be out of place to mention that the acts and deeds of the O.P. No. 2 [Station Master, Khurial Station ( N.F.Rly) P.O. Shiopur, Via Shalmari, Dist. Katihar(Bihar)]regarding collection of Rlys. fares exceeding the prescribed notifications of the Railway Authority deserves attention of the Railways Authorities. Point No. 2 In the result, the case succeeds. Proper fees have been paid. Hence, ordered that Malda D.F. Case No. 23/2007 stands decreed on contest against N. Topno O.P. No.2 [Station Master, Khurial Station ( N.F.Rly) P.O. Shiopur, Via Shalmari, Dist. Katihar(Bihar)]and stands dismissed on contest against O.P. No. 1 (Chief Commercial Manager N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati- 781 011.). The petitioner do get award of Rs. 500/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation cost. O.P. No.1 do pay the aforesaid quantum of money within 30 days from date; and O.P. No.1 in its turn do realise the said amount from O.P.No.2 as per Rly rules and procedures. In case of failure to pay the aforesaid award within the stipulated period the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.m. till its final realization after lapse of 30 days from today. Let a copy of the order be given to both parties free of cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sumana Das A. K. Sinha S.K. Chakraborty Member Member President D.C.D.R.F., Malda D.C.D.R.F., Malda D.C.D.R.F., Malda | 
