BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 98/2014 Filed on 12/03/2014
Dated: 30..06..2016
Complainant:
O.R. Rajeev, S/o Omana,TC.40/997(1), Lekshmi Nivas, Saras-33(A), Manacaud-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. Now working at Army No.15784183, Romea Battery, 436 AD MS Regt, C/o 56 APO, Jhanchi.
(Party in person)
Opposite parties:
1. Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram Division Office, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Chief Ticket Examiner, Southern Railway, TVC Division, Central Railway Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Renganathan)
This C.C having been heard on 13..05..2016, the Forum on 30..06..2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:
Gist of the case is as follows: Complainant herein is a Lance Naik in Indian Army, serving at Jhansi Sector. After vacation, for rejoining his unit at Jhansi, he booked a Railway ticket using his warrant and his status of booking was RAC 2 with ticket No. 4258947162. The journey was on 21/02/2014 from Thiruvananthapuram to Jhansi. His ticket was examined by the TTE when the train reached Chengannur Station. TTE told the complainant that the number noted in the warrant and ticket are entirely different and treated him like a person who is travelling unauthorisedly without ticket. Though the complainant tried to made him belief the facts, everything fell on deaf ears and he was forced to pay Rs. 2,400/- as fine for travelling without ticket. He was compelled to run to the ATM counter at Chengnnur Station in order to fetch the money to pay this amount. Complainant alleges that TTE misbehaved with him, even without considering the fact that he is a soldier, who is serving the country and he is going back to join his Unit at Jhansi. So he approached this Forum claiming refund of the amount collected from him as fine along with compensation for his mental agony.
2. Opposite parties filed joint version contending as follows: The competent Forum to try such disputes is the Railway Claim Tribunal, as per the provisions contained in Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987 and Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act specifies the bar of jurisdiction. The present case is a matter, which falls under Section 13(I)(b) of the RCT Act, 1987 and only the Railway Claims Tribunal, has the power to decide the said matter. This Forum lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this complaint since Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 expressly bars any other Court or authority to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Railway Claims Tribunal to adjudicate upon matters referred in Section 13 of the RCT Act, 1987. So the issue of jurisdiction is to be decided as a preliminary issue. The complainant is not a consumer of these opposite parties as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant had never paid any money to obtain his journey ticket. The ticket issued to him was a Military warrant (IAFT 1752) which was completely free and no money was paid by the complainant. It is the Defence Department who has issued the Military warrant to the complainant. In other words, Government of India is the payee, and hence the consumer, if at all there is any consumer disputes are there in question, but not admitted by these opposite parties. There was no deficiency, negligence or lapse on the part of the opposite parties or any of its employees. They had acted only according to the rules made by the government, upon which the service was offered to the party. The complainant had been issued with a Check Solder ticket and stub portion of the warrant, and the prime condition of issue was that the passenger should carry the original ticket and stub (lower) portion of the warrant while on journey and be produced to the ticket checking staff immediately on demand. It is on this condition that this ticket was issued and was accepted by the complainant. The “valid ticket” in this case is Check Solder ticket and stub portion of the warrant together, and these cannot be severed. The Ticket Checking Manual clearly says the procedure to be adopted when a military personnel is travelling with ticket but without lower portion of the warrant. It affirms that excess fare need to be collected from such military personnel. The complainant is bound to act as per the condition of issue of ticket, and to carry this stub portion of the warrant along with the ticket. However, he failed to carry this lower portion of the warrant along with his reservation slip and hence, in effect, he had no valid travel authority with him to travel in the said train, at all. It is to be noted that the complainant had no valid ticket to travel by Train No. 16317 Express of 21/02/2014. As such, it is only the negligence or deficiency on the part of the complainant in not making use of this facility. These opposite parties could not be held responsible for this. All facilities were provided for the complainant by the opposite parties. He was provided with a confirmed berth B1/59, in train No. 16317 Express / 21/02/2014, as per his request, free of cost but he had failed to produce the required travelling authority prescribed by the Railways. Then the complainant was asked to produce his identity card, but he had failed to produce, even that. As per existing rules, the ticket examiner had no other option but to excess charge the passenger. In order to permit the complainant to travel in the same train, this act of excess charging by the ticket examiner was quite essential. As such, the fare and excess charge, prescribed by the rule was collected by the ticket examiner, and this could only be termed as complying the rules, and not deficiency of service by any means. The allegation of the complainant that the ticket examiner had behaved in a rude way and tried to detrain the complainant is false and hence denied. His detraining was not demanded by any of them. No refund is due to the complainant and no deficiency of any sort was extended by any employee of these opposite parties. The allegation that he had lost money and undergone mental agony is denied. If at all any mental agony and monetary loss is caused, it was only because of the negligence of the complainant. These opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as compensation, cost or refund to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant is driven by undue monetary intentions and if such complaints are entertained it would drain the national exchequer in no time.
3. Complainant filed affidavit along with 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. He was examined as PW1. Opposite parties filed affidavit, but failed to turn up for being cross examined. No documentary evidence was marked before this Forum.
Issues raised:
(i) Whether this complaint is maintainable?
(ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
(iii) If so, reliefs and costs if any?
4. Issues (i) to (iii): Opposite parties challenges the maintainability as preliminary issue. Their contention is that since the complainant is claiming refund, this matter is to be adjudicated before the Railway Claims Tribunal. But on proper verification and evidence before us, it is clear that complainant alleges deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. He claims compensation for the same and claiming refund of the amount collected from him though he was legally not bound for that. So this Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter.
5. Complainant came on leave to his native place. He has booked his return ticket to his work place on 21/02/2014. The opposite party has allotted reservation under RAC 2, with ticket No. AA 57273763. On 21/02/2014 complainant started his journey from Thiruvananthapuram at 4p.m. When the train reached Chengannur, ticket examiner came and after examining complainant’s ticket said that the numbers shown in the both the warrant and ticket are different and that in order to continue the journey, complainant had to pay Rs. 2400/- towards fine. Complainant has produced the warrant and ticket and marked as Exts. P1 & P2. The complainant has booked the ticket as per the warrant issued to him. But the number in the ticket was wrongly printed than that in warrant issued to the complainant by the officials in the railway booking office. But at the same time the number in the ticket issued to him while travelling from Jhansi to Thiruvananthapuram was printed correctly. Though the complainant asserted that he has booked the ticket as per the warrant issued to him and that it was the railway authorities who has issued the ticket wrongly and that complainant was not travelling in an unauthorised manner and that complainant was possessing all the relevant records but the Train Ticket Examiner (TTE) behaved in a harsh manner, and the train ticket examiner asked the complainant to get down at Chengannur. Moreoever TTE insulted the complainant. As a result the complainant had to get down at Chengannur Railway Station withdraw money from ATM and paid the fine amount. Inspite of being an Indian Army Soldier serving the nation, the TTE has illegally collected an amount of Rs. 2400/- as fine stating that the number in the warrant and the ticket are entirely different. Though the complainant was having a valid warrant and a reservation ticket and there being no fault on his side the complainant was made to suffer. There was irregularities, latches and mistakes on the part of opposite parties who had issued the ticket without properly going through the warrant issued to complainant. In spite of producing the proper warrant complainant was deceived of the berth allotted to him and complainant was compelled to pay an amount of Rs. 2400/- by the opposite parties as fine. Opposite parties alleges that the fault was with the complainant who failed to produce the documents for verification. Then it is the duty of the opposite parties’ to prove this contention. They failed to prove this. Moreover complainant categorically states that he had produced all the documents for verification. Nothing has been made out from the cross examination of the complainant also. So we are of the view that opposite parties failed to substantiate their contentions. So the complainant is eligible for compensation as well as refund of the amount collected from him as excess fare.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.2400/- to the complainant along with Rs. 1000/- as compensation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint, no order on cost. Time for compliance 2 months on receipt of this order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest on Rs. 2,400/- till realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2016.
Sd/-LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/- P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Ad sd/-R. SATHI : MEMBER
C.C.No: 98/2014
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness:
PW1 : Rajeev. O.R
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of the warrant & ticket dated 30/05/2014
P2(a) : Copy of the train reservation ticket dated 21/02/2016
P2(b) : Copy of the train ticket dated 21/01/2016
P3 : Copy of the excess fare ticket dated 21/02/2016
III. Opposite parties’ witness : N I L
IV. Opposite parties’ documents : N I L
Sd/-PRESIDENT
ad
