DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.13/2007. Date of filing of the Case: 12.02.2007 Complainant | Opposite Parties | Swaminath Singha S/O. Late Rajbali Singha 83, Bangaltuli Lane, Hyderpur, P.O. & Dist. Malda. PIN – 732101. | 1. | Chief Commercial Manager, N.F. Rly, Maligaon Guwahati – 781011. | 2. | Divisional Railway Manager, Katihar, P.O. & Dist. Katihar (Bihar). | 3. | Shri B.K. Misra Asstt. Commercial Manager N.F. Railway Katihar Division, P.O. & Dist. Katihar (Bihar). |
Present: | 1. | Shri S.K. Chakraborty, President | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | 3. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member |
For the Petitioner : Himself. For the O.P.s : Samir Roy, Advocate. Order No. 19 Dt. 04.10.2007 This is an application dated 2.09.2007 filed by O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 contending therein that due to clerical mistake the ticket No.16663163 has been written instead of 16663161 and hence the prayer is to amend para – 27 of the written statement by insertion of the quoted portion instead of the existing one. This petition has seriously been objected by the petitioner by filing a written objection dated 20.09.2007 (copy served) contending further therein that the additional written version is for unlawful gain and has been filed at a belated stage of completion of witnesses on behalf of both the parties. Hd. ld. advocate on behalf of the petitioner – O.P. and the petitioner himself. Amended CPC of 2002 has specifically engrafted the proviso, that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless it is found that inspite of due diligence, the party could Contd.P/2…. P – 2 not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Admittedly, the power is entirely discretionary to be used judicially on a consideration of the specific circumstances of each case. The rule allows at any stage all amendments which satisfy two conditions VIZ., of not working in-justice to the other side, and of being necessary for the purpose of determining, “the real questions in controversy between the parties.” Let us now see as to whether amendment sought for by the O.P. – petitioners is of such a nature as to displace the other party. We have carefully considered the provision of law as well as the submission of both the parties and is of considered opinion amendment of para 27 of the written version sought for, in fact, was all along had been in the knowledge of the O.Ps. and the amendment is clearly belated and has been moved with design to delay the proceeding and in this connection this Forum has taken assistance of the observation appearing in AIR 1994 AII 99. In addition it may further be noted that fruits have since been accrued to the petitioner through the evidence adduced by both the parties is likely to be seriously affected if the amendment sought for is allowed at this stage and the prayer is not of clarificatory in nature. It may also be mentioned in this connection that clarification has been made in the immediate succeeding para (Vide para 28) and hence it also seems redundant to allow such prayer. Hence, ordered, that the application dated 12.09.2007 of the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 stands rejected on contest with no order as to cost. To 11.10.2007 for filing written argument by both the parties with copy to each other. Sd/-04.10.2007 Sd/-04.10.2007 Sd/-04.10.2007 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
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.13/2007. Date of filing of the Case: 12.02.2007 Complainant | Opposite Parties | Swaminath Singha S/O. Late Rajbali Singha 83, Bangaltuli Lane, Hyderpur, P.O. & Dist. Malda. PIN – 732101. | 1. | Chief Commercial Manager, N.F. Rly, Maligaon Guwahati – 781011. | 2. | Divisional Railway Manager, Katihar, P.O. & Dist. Katihar (Bihar). | 3. | Shri B.K. Misra Asstt. Commercial Manager N.F. Railway Katihar Division, P.O. & Dist. Katihar (Bihar). |
Present: | 1. | Shri S.K. Chakraborty, President | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | 3. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member |
For the Petitioner : Himself. For the O.P.s : Samir Roy, Advocate. Order No. 22 Dt. 20.11.2007 Petitioner is personally present with his written argument. O.Ps. are absent on repeated calls. Written argument of the petitioner could not be served due to non-appearance of the O.Ps. Fix 18.12.2007 for submission of written argument as last chance by O.Ps. as the petitioner submits that he will proceed to outside the state to visit holy places. Sd/-20.11.2007 Sd/-20.11.2007 Sd/-20.11.2007 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
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.13/2007. Date of filing of the Case: 12.02.2007 Complainant | Opposite Parties | Swaminath Singha S/O. Late Rajbali Singha 83, Bangaltuli Lane, Hyderpur, P.O. & Dist. Malda. PIN – 732101. | 1. | Chief Commercial Manager, N.F. Rly, Maligaon Guwahati – 781011. | 2. | Divisional Railway Manager, Katihar, P.O. & Dist. Katihar (Bihar). | 3. | Shri B.K. Misra Asstt. Commercial Manager N.F. Railway Katihar Division, P.O. & Dist. Katihar (Bihar). |
Present: | 1. | Shri S.K. Chakraborty, President | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | 3. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member |
For the Petitioner : Himself. For the O.P.s : Samir Roy, Advocate. Order No. 26 Dt. 10.01.2008 Complainant’s case may be stated in a brief compass. Petitioner boarded 3163 Up train on 20.02.2006 at Malda Town Rly Stn. He boarded a sleeper coach having his ticket for journey in unreserved compartment. One T.T.E. asked him to show the ticket which was meant for having journey in an unreserved compartment and as the petitioner entered into a reserved compartment the T.T.E. asked to pay fine and penalty of Rs. 269/- against Ticket No. 16663163( Senior Citizen) but the T.T.E. mentioned in the E.F.T. the ticket number as 16663161 which, the complainant complains is an unlawful act on the part of the T.T.E. for which the complainant has lodged the present complaint alleging how can a person having bonafide express ticket be charged fine and be treated as a person without having any ticket for which a fine of Rs. 250/- has been charged. Much has been stated in the petition of complaint about allegations of T.T.Es but he has centered his allegation with regard to the charge of excess ticket fare in addition to fine. Accordingly, he has lodged this complaint seeking reliefs as have been mentioned in the petition of complaint. Contd……P/2 P-2 O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 have filed a joint written version challenging the maintainability of the present case and that the case is barred by law having no jurisdiction of the present Forum to entertain the above case and is also barred by principles of waiver, contending inter-alia that as per rule a person holding 2nd Class mail / express unreserved ticket, if detected in a sleeper or in the class in which he is not authorized to travel will be charged with fine and differences. One who obtains no appropriate ticket be treated as a person without ticket or an irregular traveler and the differences of fare plus higher excess is to be realized from all such passengers. Their further complaint is that the T.T.E. is of a special checking group is exempted from wearing their uniform. The T.T.E. by charging the fine and the penalty has acted in accordance with the power and in such circumstances they have prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint. On pleadings of both the parties the following points have been framed in order to make effective disposal of the case:- 1) Whether the petitioner is a ‘Consumer’ in terms of Sec. 2 ( 1 ) (d) of the C.P. Act ? 2) Whether the acts and deeds of the T.T.E.s with regard to the present petitioner suffer from any deficiency ? 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for ? :DECITION WITH REASONS: Point No.1 ‘Consumer’ means any person who hires any services for consideration. ‘Service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities as defined in Clause (O) of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 2 of the C.P. Act. In the instant case complainant has purchased a ticket for availing train services from Malda Town Rly Stn. to some other place as senior citizen, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there can be no dispute that the complainant hired the services of the railways, for consideration. There can also be no dispute that the Railway Authority makes available its services to potential users. Thus, the complainant in the present case to be treated as a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of the Act which disposes of the present point in the affirmative. Contd…..P/3 P-3 Point No. 2 The petitioner has lodged complaint alleging that the services of the Railway Authority suffer from deficiency. Any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of service undertaken to be performed amounts to deficiency as has been observed by the Hon’ble Judges in 1991 (2) CPR 567 (569). In order to ascertain whether there is any deficiency on the part of the O.P.s let us enter into the testimony of the petitioner who has been examined as PW-1. But before entering into his testimony it seems appropriate to refer to the circular issued by Ministry of Rlys ( Railway Board) bearing No. 2007/TG-V/26/1 dt.21.08.2007 addressed to Chief Commercial Manager, all Zonal Rlys having Commercial Circular No. 75/2007 with the subject noted therein as realization of excess charge / penalty from passengers found travelling in higher class with lower class ticket. This has references to Sec.137 and 138 of Railway Act., 1999 and para 229 of Commercial Manual para (a) of which states as follows:- “Difference of fare between the two classes upto the point of detection or the minimum chargeable distance whichever is higher along with penalty. Penalty to be levied will be equal to the charge payable, subject to a minimum of Rs.250/-“. The point may be raised as to whether such commercial circular which is dt.21.08.2007 may be applicable in a case which appears to have taken place in February , 2006. In this connection the sentence quoted below appears to be sufficient wherein provisions stipulated in Rly. Act. 1989 and para 229 of Commercial Manual have been referred to. Now let us make a scrutiny of the testimony of P.W. – 1 who has admitted at the very initial stage of deposition that 20.02.2006 he boarded the reserved compartment of the train named and styled Hate – Bazare in Malda Town Stn. and ‘purchased one ticket which is meant for unreserved compartment of one Mail/Express train;’ and further his ticket no. was U16663163 dt.20.02.2006 for which he has paid Rs.26/- as senior citizen. After his entry in the reserved compartment two T.T.Es boarded the compartment and demanded ticket from him and on his query one T.T.E. replied that he will have to pay fine because he has boarded reserved compartment instead of unreserved one. This petitioner has further admitted that one T.T.E. scribed one paper and asked the petitioner to put his signature. Contd….P/4 P-4 The petitioner denies of having his ticket No.U16663161; but it appears on scrutiny of his testimony that the petitioner has put his signature on the E..F.T bearing serial no.065456 dt.20.02.2006. These documents have been marked Ext.1 to 5. The pertinent question which requires disposal at the stage is why the petitioner has put his signature on a paper, i.e. E.F.T. which has been issued over ticket no.U16663161 on 20.02.2006. It further appears from his cross-examination that he ‘acted as a principal of one B. Ed. college Malda’ and has admitted, ‘I could not show sleeper coach ticket to the T.T.E. on demand for which I had to pay excess fare ticket (E.F.T.). Ext.1 does not manifest that the same was shown to T.T.E. Ext.2 bears my signature. It is fact that after going through the writings of the E.F.T. I have put my signature thereon’ This P.W. – 1 has stated that without going through all the writing of Ext.2, he signed the same while the same was handed over to him. But being a Principal of one B.Ed. college how can such ignorance be expected from a man of his position. True it is that in E.F.T. (Ext2) ticket no. has been written as 1663161. But this petitioner has admitted of putting his signature over Ext.2 and mere saying that he has not gone through all the writings of Ext.2 does not appear to be entertainable as per his won admission as he acted as Principal of one B. Ed. College. It cannot be denied that the ticket number has erroneously been scribed on Ext-2 but when PW-1 has admitted of putting his signature what prevented PW-1 from going through the writings of the E.F.T. This PW-1 has also admitted at Page-2 in course of his cross-examination, “ It is a fact that I was not a bonafide passenger of the reserved compartment.” It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that OPW-3 has admitted, “ Ext-1 is not the ticket against which E.F.T. was issued to the petitioner ……….”In view of the above facts and circumstances and the admission of PW-1 referred to hereinabove this statement of OPW-3 appears to be mistaken and no reliance can be placed on such statement specially keeping in mind the statement of the petitioner himself mentioned supra. Thus, after giving our anxious thought over the matter this Forum is of considered opinion that the service of the O.P.s does not suffer from any deficiency. The statement of OPW-3 is that generally initial signature is put on the ticket against which E.F.T. is issued is not mandatory and that there is no such initial Contd……P/5 P-5 signature on Ext-2 does not make it unreliable specially in view of praiseworthy cross-examination of PW-1 himself. Thus this issue is disposed of against the petitioner. Point No. 3 In the result the present case fails. Proper fees have been paid. Hence, ordered that Malda D.F. Case No. 13/2007 be and the same stands dismissed on contest. In the peculiar circumstances of the case there will be no order as to cost. Let a copy of the order be given to both the 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. | 
