IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA. Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010. Present:- Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.14/09 (Filed on 02.02.2009) Between: Annamma Ramachandran, Valiaveettil ‘R’ Villa, Pariyaram.P.O., Mallappally West, Pathanamthitta Dist. (By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan) .... Complainant And: 1. General Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram.P.O. 2. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, (Refunds), Southern Railway, Thycadu, Thiruvananthapuram.P.O. 3. The Superintendent, Thiruvalla Railway Station, Thiruvalla.P.O. (By Adv. George Koshy) .... Opposite parties. O R D E R Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that she along with her husband started a journey to New Delhi by 2625, Kerala Express in 3rd AC on 04.10.07. Since they are senior citizens they are entitled to get train ticket at the concessional rate under senior citizens category and their journey was with the said tickets obtained from the 3rd opposite party’s office after complying all the formalities required for getting such a ticket. On 5.10.07, some where near Ramakundam in Andra Pradesh one checking official of the opposite parties checked the petitioner’s ticket and imposed a fine of Rs.3,721/- by saying that the petitioner had not completed the age of 60 at that time. The petitioner told that her date of birth is 21.04.1947 and as such she had attained the age of 60 and she is entitled to get the benefit of a senior citizen as provided by the Indian Railway. But unfortunately the official checked only the voters I.D. card of the petitioner in which it was noted that her age was 58 as on 01.01.2006. The other documents shown by the petitioner to prove her correct date of birth was discarded by the said official. The petitioner was also humiliated by the said official in the presence of other co-passengers. The said official had no right to impose such a huge fine and it is against the existing rules and principles. Thereafter a notice in this regard was issued by the petitioner to the 2nd opposite party but he had not responded accordingly. The above said acts of the opposite parties caused mental agony, suffering and distress to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable for the same. Hence this complaint for the realisation of the fine amount collected by the opposite parties along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of this proceedings. 3. Opposite parties filed their version with the following main contentions:- They admitted the journey of the complainant and the imposition of the fine. According to the opposite parties, the concessional rate of ticket is available only to those lady passengers who are 60 or above. As per the rule, there is no formality for getting a senior citizen ticket from the railway station and it is granted as per demand. No proof of age is required at the time of booking a ticket under senior citizens category. But during the journey the senior citizen passengers who obtained such a ticket should produce some document to prove the age or date of birth issued by any Govt. Institution/Agency/Local body. If such document is not produced at the time of checking by the railway authorities such passengers are considered and treated as travelling without ticket. In this case, the complainant had produced her voters I.D. card and as per the voters I.D. card her age was below 60 years. No other documents have also not produced. So the complainant was dealt with as per the rules. There is no illegality and hence the opposite parties are not liable to the complainant. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 5. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and the proof affidavit of the authorised officer of the opposite party and Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts.B1 to B8. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 6. The point:- The complainant’s allegation is that though she is a senior citizen, opposite parties denied the facility provided by the opposite party for senior citizens, by imposing fine of Rs.3,725/- while at her journey to New Delhi on 5.10.07 discarding the documents shown by the complainant for proving that she had attained age of 60. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating her case along with 6 documents. The documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the journey-cum reservation ticket purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties for her journey to New Delhi on 4.10.07. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of excess fare ticket for Rs.3,771/- collected by the opposite parties. Ext.A3 is the copy of letter dated 12.3.08 sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A4 is the photocopy of the voters I.D. card of the complainant. Ext.A5 is the photocopy of the pan card of the complainant. Ext.A6 is the photocopy of the 3rd page of SSLC certificate of the complainant. 7. On the other hand, the opposite parties contention is that at the time of examination of the complainant’s ticket, she had shown her voters I.D. card to the ticket examiner. But as per the said I.D. card she had not completed the age of 60 and hence she is not entitled to get the facilities provided by the opposite parties for senior citizens as per the rules of opposite parties and such passengers are treated as travelling without tickets and are dealt with under the provisions of railway rules. So the imposition of the fine against the complainant is legal and the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs prayed for in the complaint. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, an authorised officer of the opposite party has filed a proof affidavit along with 8 documents and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B8. Ext.B1 and B2 are the attested copies of relevant portions of ticket checking manual 2002. Ext.B3 is the attested copy of rules regarding penalties imposed for various irregularities published by the opposite parties for the information of the passengers. Ext.B4 is the attested copy of Sec.137 of Indian Railway Act 1989. Ext.B5 is the attested copy of Sec.138 of the above act. Ext.B6 is the attested copy of Sec.139 of the said act. Ext.B7 and B8 are the attested copy of relevant portion of Indian Railway Conference Association Coach Tariff Part I Volume I (2003). 8. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the party we have perused the entire materials on record. On a perusal of the materials, it is seen that there is no dispute between the parties in respect of the complainant’s journey and the imposition of fine. The only dispute between the parties is with regard to the age of the complainant. According to the complainant, she had attained the age of 60 and she had obtained her ticket from the opposite parties after complying all the formalities for getting a ticket for the complainant under the senior citizen category. Moreover, she had showed proper documents to the ticket examiner showing her age. But according to the opposite parties, there is no special formalities for obtaining a ticket under senior citizen category and senior citizen category tickets are issued on demand and no proof of age is required at the time of purchase of the ticket. But the passengers should produce some documents to prove the age or date of birth, recognized by the Govt. But in this case, at the time of examination of the ticket the complainant had produced her voters I.D. card and no other documents were produced as claimed by the complainant. In the circumstances, the complainant was treated as a passenger without ticket and they have imposed fine under the relevant portions of the rules of the opposite parties. So they argued that this complaint is not allowable, as they have acted legally. 9. In this case, though the complainant claims that she had shown her voters I.D. card and certain other documents to the ticket examiner for proving her age, but there is no evidence to show that she had shown such and such documents to the ticket examiner. Ext.A5 and A6 shows that the complainant had attained the age of 60. But the complainant failed to prove that she had produced Exts.A5 and A6 before the ticket examiner at the time of checking. 10. At the same time Exts.B1 to B8 clearly proves the contentions of the opposite parties that there is no special formality for obtaining a ticket under senior citizens category and the passengers claiming the senior citizen benefits provided by the opposite parties are bound to show proper documents at the time of examination and in the absence of such documentary proof, such passengers will be penalized. In the circumstances, we find no reason to allow this complaint and is liable to be dismissed. 11. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the opposite parties for the refund of any amount paid by the complainant as fine, if there is any provision for refund in case of later finding and establishing that the passenger from whom fine is collected, is entitled to get the benefits under senior citizen category provided by the opposite parties. 12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed with the above direction no cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 11th day of June, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N.Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of the journey-cum reservation ticket. A2 : Photocopy of excess fare ticket for Rs.3,771/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. A3 : Photocopy of letter dated 12.3.08 sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party for refund of excess penalty imposed during the journey to New Delhi by Kerala Express. A4 : Photocopy of the voters I.D. card of the complainant. A5 : Photocopy of the pan card of the complainant. A6 : Photocopy of the 3rd page of SSLC certificate of the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 & B2: Attested copies of relevant portions of ticket checking manual 2002. B3 : Attested copy of rules regarding penalties imposed for various irregularities published by the opposite parties for the information of the passengers. B4 : Attested copy of Sec.137 of Indian Railway Act 1989. B5 : Attested copy of Sec.138 of Indian Railway Act 1989. B6 : Attested copy of Sec.139 of Indian Railway Act 1989. B7 & B8 : Attested copy of relevant portion of Indian Railway Conference Association Coach Tariff Part I Volume I (2003). (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to: (1) Annamma Ramachandran, Valiaveettil ‘R’ Villa, Pariyaram.P.O., Mallappally West, Pathanamthitta Dist. (2) The General Manager, Southern Railway, hiruvananthapuram.P.O. (3) The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,(Refunds), Southern Railway, Thycadu, Thiruvananthapuram.P.O. (4) The Superintendent, Thiruvalla Railway Station,Thiruvalla.P.O. (5) The stock file.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
