Case of the petitioners is as follows:

Petitioner is working as the swimming Coach of the Mahtama Gandhi University, Kottayam. Petitioner had to take 21 swimmers of the University for the journey from Kottayam to Thiruvananthapuram for participating university students in all India Swimming competitions. First opposite party is the Manager of the Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram, second opposite party is the station master of Kottayam Railway station. On 11..1..2006 petitioner submitted an application to the office of the second opposite party for taking railway ticket in concession rates. According to the petitioner students who participate in all India competitions are eligible for 75 % concession in fares as per Railway rules. But the officers of the opposite party did not give concession and also not given return ticket though applied for return tickets. Petitioner mentioned in

-2-

the application that students are travelling from Kottayam to Trivandrum station and back. A sum of Rs. 494/- was given by the petitioner at Kottayam towards full ticket fares. When students reached Trivandrum the team had to return after swimming meet where upon they were informed from Trivandrum Railway station that tickets issued from Kottayam were for only upward journey and the petitioner had to take tickets for a sum of Rs. 950/- (full fare) at Trivandrum for the return journey. Reaching home petitioner gave a memorandum to the first opposite party. The first opposite party replied to the petitioner that the concession form prepared from M.G University was for journey from Kottayam to Trivandrum only and hence regreated to process further in the

matter. Petitioner caused to issue a lawyers notice to the opposite party demanding the excess amount collected from the petitioner and cost of the notice. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party is not giving concession to the students is a clear deficiency of service. So he prays for an order of direction to the opposite parties to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 4491/- along with 12% interest and cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner is not a consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party contented that filled up concession forms were submitted before the booking clerk at Kottayam Railway station on 11..1..2006 and further more complainant's agent did not specifically demanded for return journey ticket on any specific date at all. When the booking clerk had asked on which date they need return ticket the agent of the complainant replied that date could

-3-

not be given in advance because it dependents on the result of the competition. As the exact date of the return journey was not provided to the booking clerk, ticket could not be printed. Further more, for issuing a ticket, date of journy is quite essential. According to opposite party there is no deficiency of service on their part so, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite paprty?

iii) Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the both parties and Ext. A1 to A9 documents on the side of the petitioner.

Point No. 1

According to the opposite party there is a bar under section 13 (3) of the Railway claims tribunal Act for entertaining the petition before the Forum. We are of the opinion that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act state that provisions of the Consumer Protection Act shall be in addition to the act and not inderogation of the provisions any other law for the time being in force. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehumently argued that since there is a specific bar under the section 13 (b) of the Railway claims tribunal Act the petition is not maintainable. We are of the view that in the light of section 3 of the consumer protection Act and considering the section 13 (b) of the Railways Act the consumer can either choose to file a petition before the claims tribunal or to file a petition before the Consumer Forum. So, in our opinion the petition is maintainable before this Forum.

-4-

Point No. 2

The crux of the complaint is that petitioner is eligible for a concession of 75% because the travelers are going to participate for inter University competition. Petitioner produced a copy of Railway travel concession available to various categories of passengers and said document is marked as Ext. A3. In Ext. A3 the percentage element of concession is stated. As per Ext. A3 in the case of sports persons 50% concession is allowed for state and all India tournement and 75% is allowed for national and international tournement. The said portion stating the concession is marked as Ext. A3

(a). The counsel for the opposite party argued that as per the Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No. 25 National tournament is defined as those wich are organised annually under the aeges of a concerned National Sports Federation. Listed at Appendix I/45 . The other all India or National level tournament will not be treated as National trounament.The list of National sports Federation recognised sports is appended in Appendix 1/45 In the appendix university acquastics organised by the association of Indian Universities is not mentioned. So, the inference that can be drawn is that the passengers to whom the petitioner had taken ticket were not going for a National Tournament. Further more, in the coaching tarif the conditions of concession is also mentioned in page 199 of the said book. As 3^rd condition it is mentioned that return tickets are not issued and the seperate order should be made for each jopurney in the case of return journey. So, we are of the view that no deficiency can be attributed against the opposite party in allowing 50% concession. Case of the petitioneer that the passengers participate all India competitions are eligible for 75% concess ion in fare is not sustainable. Further more, since the opposite party had not submitted seperate order for

-5-

return journey we find is no deficiency in not issuing the return tickets. In order to find deficiency in service as per section 2 (g) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 there should be any fault, imperfection shortcoming or inadequasy in the quality nature and manner of the performance which is required to be maintained by any law for time being in force. So, no deficiency in service can be attributed aganst the opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is order.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22^nd day of January, 2009.