BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.69/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 9^th March 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and refund the amount of Rs.280/- wrongly imposed as fine and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings with such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant, an advocate, holding a valid season ticket, intended to board the train at Kengeri Railway Station, along with his spouse and 5 years old son on 03.10.2015, enquired the ticket issuing clerk (i.e. OP-4) about the need for purchase of a ticket for his 5 years old son, as there was no notice published / displayed near the ticket issuing counter or at the railway station premises.  The opposite party No.4 replied that, there is no need to purchase ticket for children of 5 years age.  As such, the complainant purchased ticket for his wife only and boarded the train with his son at 9.00 AM to reach Mysore.
3.     While the train was approaching Sriranga Patna Railway Station, the opposite party No.5 (TTE) demanded ticket for the child, since there was no ticket, raised objection for travelling without a valid ticket for the child.  The complainant narrated the facts which lead him not to buy the ticket for his son, but the opposite party No.5, who refused to hear to any clarification, imposed a fine of Rs.280/- alleging travelling without a valid ticket in respect of complainant’s son, which amounts to an offence.  It is alleged that opposite party No.5 misbehaved and caused humiliation before other co-passengers, without undertaking the provision of Railways Act.
4.     Further, a complaint has been filed before opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2, seeking action against errant/ignorant staff/officers by conducting an enquiry.  It is learnt that, no enquiry was held by opposite party No.1, because the complaint lodged by the complainant not reached the office of opposite party No.1.  Thereby the aggrieved complainant, alleged the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties, filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
5.     The opposite party filed their version, denying the allegation as false.  It submits the complainant not issued the statutory notice under section 79 and 80 of C.P.C, while filing a complaint against opposite parties, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6.     As per the general rule published in the time table, it is to required purchase ticket for the children between the age group 5 to 12 years to travel in the train.  The opposite party No.5 owes a duty to collect the fine for having travelled without a valid ticket, from the passengers.  The complainant alleges the opposite party staff without proper understanding the prevailing rules.
7.     The written complaint submitted by the complainant has not reached the complaints cell, as such no action was initiated against the opposite party No.5.  The same has been communicated by the information officer.  The complainant was reluctant to the reply of opposite party No.5 and has refused affix his signature on the EFT receipt.  Therefore, denies the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
8.     Both parties lead evidence by filing their respective affidavits and several documents.  Written arguments filed by both parties. Heard the parties. Perused the material on record and posted the matter for orders.
9.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties, for imposing penalty on the grounds, for not having a valid ticket for his 5 years old son and for not initiating any action for irregularities committed by the opposite party Nos.4 and 5, thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

10.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

11. Point No.1:- The complainant alleged that, he was subjected to humiliation and suffered mental agony by the opposite parties, for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice sought for compensation and damages for the same by the opposite parties. 
12. The complainant an advocate intended to travel to Mysore from Kengari Railway Station by train on 03.10.2015, with his wife and 5 years old son, enquired the opposite party No.4 at the counter about the need for buying a ticket for his 5 years old son.  The opposite party No.4 replied that, no need to buy ticket for children of age 5 years.  So boarded the train by purchasing ticket only for his wife and he had a season ticket for himself.
13. The opposite party No.5, the TTE demanded the ticket for the complainant’s son.  The complainant explained the TTE, the reasons for not purchasing ticket for his son, but the opposite party No.5, who is not prepared to hear any clarifications from the complainant, issued a receipt imposing penalty of Rs.280/- for travelling without a valid ticket.  The complainant alleged that, the opposite party Nos.4 and 5 without proper understanding the provision of the Railways Act 1989.  The contention of opposite party No.5 that the complainant refused to sign on the receipt is denied as false.
14. On lodging a complaint against the errant officials with opposite party No.1, through opposite party No.2, no action has been initiated against them. 
15. Further, the information officer of opposite party No.1, issued an endorsement, stating the complaint lodged by complainant has not been received by him, even though the same has been received on 07.12.2016.  This is confirmed by the reply issued relating to the application filed under RTI Act, 2005, by the complainant.  Thereby, the complainant alleged that, all the opposite parties have jointly and severally committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
16. The opposite party contended that, the child aged 5 to 12 years have to travel with a child ticket, the same is enumerated in the time table.  Further, the complainant not placed any evidence for having enquired at the ticket counter, at the time of purchasing ticket for his wife, to establish the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.4.  The allegation of imposing a penalty on co-passenger with heavy luggage is not questionable.  The complaint received by opposite party No.1, have to be disposed off by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager within the stipulated period of time.  The allegation of deficiency by the opposite party No.3 for non-display of the relevant information to the passengers, who purchase ticket before boarding the trains, is also not justified.  However, the opposite party iterated on new rule, w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and accordingly contended that, every child in the age group of 5 to 12 years of age are bound to take the full ticket instead of half ticket, under the revised provisions.
17. On perusal of the pleadings, contentions and the material placed on both parties, it is evident that, the complainant travelled in the train, without taking a valid ticket for his five years old son.  It is also true that, the complainant had no intention to travel without a valid ticket for his son.  It is the ignorance of the ticket issuing authority i.e. opposite party No.4, which ultimately not lead to buy the ticket.  Further, imposing fine by opposite party No.5, without proper understanding the provisions and the clarification tendered by the learned advocate (i.e. the complainant) who abides the provisions of law, which ultimately and resulted in filing this complaint.  Further, inspite of filing of complaint against the misbehaviour by the opposite party No.5 and imposing fine without understanding the provisions of Railways Act and having given wrong information by opposite party No.4, negligence in conducting any enquiry by opposite party No.1, which certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.  Accordingly, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay suitable compensation to the complainant.  Hence, the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
18. Point No.2:- In view of the observations in point No.1, we  pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties jointly and severally hereby directed to refund the fine imposed by Rs.280/- with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of complaint to this date, to the complainant, within 60 days of this order.  Failing to pay the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.30/- per day until payment made.
3. The opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay Rs.2,000/- towards the deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 60 days of this order.  In default, to pay interest at 10% p.a. until compliance.
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 9^th March 2018)