<br /> By R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> The complaint is filed for getting the penalty amount Rs.1,047/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation with interest and cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> The avernments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The petitioner reserved 3 tickets for journey on 05/07/05 from Ernakulam to Kolpur in Ernakulam – Guwahali train No. 5623 in connection with the Complainant daughter’s interview.<br /> The issuing authority after verification of documents convinced that the Complainant is eligible for concession for senior citizen sanctioned concession and issued ticket in concessional rate. When the train reached Vijayawada, Railway squad checked tickets. The complaint who is unaware of the fact that he should carry the age poof could not produce any document to prove his age. The squad charged penalty Rs.1,047 and harassed the Complainant too much before the passengers and his family members. Even though mental agony sustained by the Complainant cannot be compensated by money the Complainant claimed for Rs.50,000/- along with penalty amount. The refusal of claim by the opp.parties amounts deficiency in service. Hence the Complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.parties filed version contenting interalia that the complaint is not sustainable either in law or an facts. Consumer Forum is not appropriate Forum to try this case. Hence the Complainant is bad for lack of jurisdiction. The cause of action had occurred at Vijayawada and not at Kollam. Jurisdiction pertains Forum at Ernakulam, Kolpur or Vijayawada. The petitioner did not have a valid ticket at all while traveling. There is no practice nor rule to verify age proof at the time of issue of tickets. Only an endorsement from the passenger in reservation reainisition form is needed. The Complainant is bound to travel complying with the conditions attached to such conventional fare tickets and should carry age proof while traveling. When ticket examiner requested him to produce age proof he produced voters identity card to him. As per that record, he is not eligible for concession rate. Since it was a fraudulent journey, he was excess charged. The Opposite Parties have acted only according to law and did not caused any deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Based on the contentions, the points that would arise for considerations are:<br /> <br /> 1. The question of Jurisdiction<br /> 2. Whether there is any deficiency in Service<br /> 3. Compensation and cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> The Complainant filed affidavit. Exhibits P1 to were marked. Pw1 examined. <br /> <br /> For Opposite Party, Exhibits D1 to D4 were marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Point 1<br /> <br /> As the matter is concerned with deficiency in Service, forum has jurisdiction. Even though the incident was happened at Vijayawada, the cause of action starts from the time of issue of ticket. So the Version of Opposite Parties relating jurisdiction cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> Points 2 and 3<br /> <br /> The Main contention of opposite parties is that the condition for journey of senior citizen in concessional rate is that they should carry the age proof at the time of journey and should produce the same on demand. These conditions are attached with the ticket itself. The Complainant states that he was unaware of the condition. At the time of checking by the Railway squad, the<br /> Complainant could not produce any document to prove that he has attained 60 years age. As per Exhibit D4, no age proof required for the purchase of ticket in concession rate allotted for senior citizen.<br /> <br /> The Complainant himself admits the conditions of concession fare to senior citizens. The Complainant could not comply with the conditions. As per the Electrical ID card submitted by the complainant he had attained only 58 years age at that time. So, he was over charged. We are of the view that Railway checking staff only acted upon the law and rules prevailing.<br /> <br /> On perusal of documents submitted by both sides and through cross examination of Pw1 there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 5th September, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> INDEX<br /> <br /> List of Witness for the complaint<br /> Pw1 N.Chandram<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />