DOF.21.01.2011
DOO.24.09.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this, the 24th day of September 2011
CC.30 /2011
A.Hemachandran
Chelayodan House,
Thiruvangad Amsom
Kavumbagham Desom,
P.O.Kavumbagam, Thalassery Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.Dometilla.S)
1.General Manger,
Southern Railway,
Chennai, ThamilNadu.
2. Station Manager,
Thalassery Railway Station. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay `33,420 including refund of fine amount, incidental expenses, compensation and cost of litigation etc.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Since the wife of the complainant got appointment in Madurai Aravinda Eye Hospital for treatment three tickets were booked from Thalassery on 18.12.210 for Mangalore-Chennai Express -6108/ As per the ticket No.453-6868548 they got waiting list tickets 39 to 41. Complainant himself filled up the reservation form for booking the ticket from Thalassery to Thiruchirapally. It was specifically mentioned that the passengers Reshma, Omana and Sreelatha are women. But in the ticket it has come out Omana – 50 – ‘M’. All the said passengers boarded from Thalassery on 19.12.2010 morning 9.50. Ticket examiner checked their ticket while they were traveling. Then TTE told Omana that it is written ‘M’ against the name of Omana that shows Omana is a male and she will not be permitted to travel using that ticket, so that she should get down from the train. By that time they were reached at Palghat. Though they were requested to continue the journey Omana were not allowed to continue but he charged penalty including the ticket fare `470. She was really insulted in front of other co-passengers. It was only a mistake committed by the booking clerk. Since they were compelled to pay the penalty and ticket fare and thereby they suffered financial stringency even to take return ticket So that they were forced to hire taxi to reach home. Though the unused ticket were surrendered with application to return the amount before Thalassery Railway station, they sent back the complainant more than six time telling various reasons. Hence this complaint.
Pursuant to the notice from the Forum opposite party entered appearance and filed version the content of which is as follows. Booking of ticket from Thalasery to Thiruchirapally and the question of Marking ‘M’ issuing of EFT for `470 are admitted. But other allegations including humiliations were denied. The reservation form was not properly filled up. The form was filled in Malayalam and the sex of the three passengers was not shown properly. The sex of Sreelatha and Omana was shown as “dito” instead of filling it properly. The reservation clerk while preparing the ticket marked ‘M’ instead of ‘F’ in the place of Omana’s sex since the ditto shown was identical to M. Complainant has the responsibility to verify the ticket before leaving the counter. Moreover the mistake could have been found out at the time of verification of reservation chart and the mistake could have been rectified by showing the TTE also. While checking the tickets in train TTE noticed that one lady was traveling with a ticket reserved for a male passenger. Even though the TTE demanded for identity card she did not produce the same. TTE then informed that identity card if not produced she has to pay penalty and without hesitation she paid `470. The complainant did not give any written complaint to Station Master though one lady approached SM and explained the incident. Moreover the reservation form was not even signed by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Railways. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in
the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 &A2 marked on the side of the complainant. No evidence adduced on the part of opposite parties.. No documents marked on the side of opposite party.
Issue Nos.1 to 3
Admittedly complainant booked three tickets from Thalassery to Thiruchirapally. While they were traveling TTE examined the ticket and found “M” marked indicating the sex male. Passengers were lady. Since the marking “M” seen TTE told the passenger Omana that she could not travel with that ticket as it is meant for a male passenger and issued EFT for `470.
Further case of the complainant is that it was he who filled up the reservation form and it was legibly written the sex female i.e. In Malayalam ‘sthri’ – “kv{Xn” towards the name. But the ticket was issued marking “M” with the name of Omana. That mistake was committed by the booking clerk, the servant of the opposite party and not by the complainant. Since all of them were passengers Omana requested him showing the identity card to continue the journey but her request was rejected and insulted her in front of other passengers in the compartment and asked her to remit penalty and ticket charge. Thus she was compelled to pay the amount and suffer the insult. Because of this incident she could not comes back by train or bus on the reason of lack of money and they returned home hiring a taxi on promise to pay the charge after arriving home. Thus the passengers suffered much difficulties including financial loss.
Opposite party on the other hand contended that while checking the tickets the TTE noticed that one lady was traveling with a ticket reserved for a male passenger. He demanded for identity card. She did not produce the same. Then TTE informed she had to pay penalty in case identity card had not been produced. She paid the amount without any hesitation. Complainant did not give any complaint to the S.M, though one lady approached S.M and explained the incident. The reservation form was not signed by the complainant. There was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
Complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit in tune with the pleadings. Ext.A1 is the journey ticket of the above said three lady passengers. It can be seen that the sex of the third passenger has been shown written “M”. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued to Lady passenger Omana for 4`70 as penalty and ticket fare. The sex marked against the name of Omana as “M” is the reason for the penalizing the passenger lady Omana. It can be seen that all the three passengers were issued on one ticket as a group. It is true the sex of one passenger marked as “M”. The passenger requested the TTE to allow the journey taking into consideration that the mistake has been committed by the booking clerk and not by the passenger. But TTE fined her. Even if “M” is shown it can be ascertain by merely reading the name whether the particular passenger in question is a man or women. It is quite wonderful to say a malayali can say that the name Omana indicates name of a male. We are living in society where we are bound to realize and recognize certain degree of understanding. A man of ordinary prudence in a Malayalam society cannot believe Omana is a male? The people will laugh at if we say Omana is a male. The TTE in order to save the Indian Railway from malpractices of passenger if considered Omana is a male gentleman the Forum is helpless to appreciate him. It could only be considered as a wrongful performance of a lawful act. Forum do fear that if it is taken as part of duty bound act of an employee the civilized society would only contemptuously evaluate the performance of the Forum. TTE is well aware that it is only a mistake. He imposed penalty knowing well that genuinely the passenger was a women. That is the reason why he did not enter in the box to give evidence. It is important to note that no evidence adduced on the part of opposite party in order to substantiate the contentions of opposite party. It is the specific case of the complainant that he has filled the reservation form and specifically written “kv{Xn” in the sex column of each name. In the cross examination PW1 deposed that “ Hma-\-bpsS t]cn\p t\sc Hma-\-bpsS sex icn-bmbn Fgp-Xn-bn-cp¶p’. In another question PW1 deposed thus: TTEHmSv tNmZn-¨p ticket s\]änTTE hn-bn Ib-dm³ ]d-ª-{]-Im-c-amWv Ib-dn-b-Xp. TTE Bh-i-y-s¸-«-t¸mÄidentity card ImWn-¨p-sIm-Sp-¯n-cp¶p”. Opposite party contended that Omana did not show the identity card when she was asked. But complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit that in the reservation form he has clearly written in Malayalam the word “kv{Xn” in order to show the sex as female. In the cross examination also PW1 deposed that he has written correctly the sex of Omana. The evidence of complainant need not disbelieve since opposite arty did not produce the reservation form, which is exclusively in their custody. If the same is not produced that only means what complainant stated and pleaded is proved. In the absence of evidence on the part of opposite party the complainant’s case could not be practically challenged by the opposite party. Complainant’s evidence cannot be rejected or also disbelieve.
In the light of the above discussion we have no hesitation to find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties are liable to meet the loss sustained by the complainant. No doubt the passengers have suffered financial loss and mental agony. Hence we are of opinions that opposite parties are liable to refund penalty amount `470 and an amount `2500 as compensation together with a sum of `1000 as cost of these proceedings. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of ` 470 (Rupees Four hundred and seventy only) paid by the complainant and an amount of `2500(Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation together with a sum of `1000(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1.Ticket issued by OP
A2. Excess fare ticket issued OP
Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
