BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 89/2005 Filed on 11.03.2005<br /> Dated : 30.09.2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> L. Santha Soman, residing at 63, Bain's Compound, Nanthancode, Thiruvananthapuram – 3. <br /> Opposite party:<br /> Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai -3.<br /> <br /> (By adv. S. Renganathan)<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 04.09.2008, the Forum on 30.09.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA: MEMBER<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: The complainant who is a lawyer had to go to Ernakulam on 03.12.2004 for attending a case before the Railway Claims Tribunal being the counsel for the applicant and due to traffic block he was little late to reach Trivandrum Central Railway Station and as it was almost time for the Jana Sadabdi Express to leave the station, the complainant rushed towards the train without taking a ticket from the counter. The complainant pleads that he has travelled several times from Alleppey to Trivandrum in the Jana Sadabdi Express through tickets issued from the train. The complainant boarded the train with the permission of the T.T.E and when the train started to move, the T.T.E demanded Rs. 100/- extra for issuing a ticket for Rs. 92/- and for a senior citizen like the complainant the fare is Rs. 67/-. Since the complainant did not oblige, the T.T.E abused him and issued a ticket for Rs. 342/-i.e; Rs. 92/- towards fare and Rs. 250/- as excess fare. The complainant is the holder of season ticket for 3 months from 16.11.2004 to 15.02.2005 and the complainant further claims to be a bonafide passenger and not a ticketless traveller. The complainant who is a lawyer further alleges that he was forced to sit in a useless bogie and therefore he could not go through his case files during the entire journey. Though the complainant had issued a notice requesting the opposite party to refund Rs. 275/- unauthorisedly collected from him, no reply has been received from the opposite party enunciating this complaint for redressal of his grievance. <br /> <br /> The opposite party has filed their version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is bad for multiplicity of grievances. On 03.12.2004 when the complainant had entered the railway station he was not holding any railway ticket or any valid authority and as such the complainant could not be considered as a consumer as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act. The passengers are expected to be at the station where their intended train starts, sufficiently before the scheduled departure of that train in the timetable, to buy the ticket and to occupy the appropriate seat. The complainant could also reserve the ticket well in advance as he was going to Ernakulam for attending a case for which the date was known to him well in advance. The allegation that the complainant boarded the train with the permission of T.T.E is denied and further the T.T.E had not given permission either to the complainant or to any other passenger for that matter to entrain Jana Sadabdi. As per Sec. 54 of Railways Act 1989, the complainant did not possess any certificate issued by any authorised railway employee permitting him to travel in coach of Jana Shadabdi Express. The allegation that the T.T.E had demanded Rs. 100/- for issuing a ticket for Rs. 92/- without collecting the penalty is also denied as this allegation is untrue and made with malicious intentions. The collection of Rs. 342/- as the Railway dues collected from the complainant by the TTE was strictly according to the rules. It contained a basic fare of Rs. 92/- from Trivandrum to Ernakulam for Jan Shadabdi Express and a penalty of Rs. 250/- which is the minimum penalty as per extant rules. No concessions are valid for the tickets issued in Trains as per extant rules. As such senior citizen concession could not be given in this case and the amount collected stands good as per extant rules. Season ticket is not a valid travel authority in Jan Shadabdi Express. The complainant had no valid travel authority when he was detected in Jan Shadabdi Express on 03.12.2004 by the TTE. The complainant has prayed for the refund of the excess charge in para 6(1) of the complaint. In respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof, or for refund of any freight paid, the Hon'ble Forum is not the appropriate legal forum as per the provisions under Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs to the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> The complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P5 on his side. The Deputy Chief Ticket Inspector has been examined on behalf of the opposite party. <br /> <br /> The issues that would arise for consideration are:- <br /> (i)Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?<br /> (ii)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (iii)Whether the complainant is eligible for the reliefs claimed?<br /> (iv)Whether the complainant has approached the Forum with clean hands?<br /> <br /> Point (i):- One of the main contentions raised by the opposite party is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that the prayer of the complainant is for the refund of the excess charge and in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof, or for refund of any freight paid, this Forum is not the appropriate legal Forum as per the provisions of Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987 and the counsel for the opposite party referred to Sec. 13(1) (b) and 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, Chapter III Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987: Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal. <br /> <br /> Sec. 13. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal<br /> (1)The Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil court or a claims commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act,-<br /> <br /> (a) relating to the responsibility of the railway administrations as carriers under Chapter VII of the Railways Act in respect of Claims for-<br /> (i)compensation for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration for carriage by railway.<br /> (ii)Compensation payable under Sec. 82 A of the Railways Act or the rules made thereunder: and <br /> (b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of any animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway.<br /> (2)The provisions of the Railways Act and the rule made thereunder shall, so far as may be, be applicable to the inquiring in to or determining, any claims by the Claims Tribunal under this Act.<br /> Sec. 15: Bar of jurisdiction<br /> On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters in referred to in sub section (1) of Sec. 13. Accordingly the opposite party's counsel contended that no court or authority shall be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> We have gone through the entire pleadings in the complaint. The grievance put forward by the complainant is that excess fare has been collected from him. He has admitted that he got into the train without taking a ticket. The complainant's allegation is that the fare collected by the TTE is excess. Though there is no specific pleadings with regard to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party, the complainant has alleged that he was forced to sit in an useless bogie and therefore he could not go through case files during his entire journey. The complainant has further alleged that the allegation in the complaint is that the fare from Trivandrum Central to Ernakulam is Rs. 92/- in Jana Shadabdi Express and for a senior citizen like the complainant it comes to Rs. 67/- and the complainant was issued with a ticket for Rs. 342/- i.e; Rs. 92/- being fare and Rs. 250/- excess fare and so he prays for refund of Rs. 275/- along with compensation. The grievance put forward by the complainant is not exclusively for refund of excess fare. As per Sec. 15 of the Act, jurisdiction of any court or other authority has been barred in respect of the matters referred to in sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of the Act of 1987. As Sec. 15 of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act 1987 completely bars the jurisdiction of the court or authority in relation to matters referred to in sub-section (1) of Sec. 13 of the Act. Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provisions of the CP Act of 1986 are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. There are allegations levelled against the opposite party with regard to the service provided in the train. The allegations in the complaint is with regard to refund of excess fare along with compensation and costs. In such a circumstance the grievance put forward by the complainant does not fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act because the grievance put forward by the complainant, besides refund of excess fare, is claim for compensation for the resultant harassment, inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant during his entire journey from Trivandrum to Ernakulam. In such a situation the doors of the consumer court cannot be shut and the matter of the complainant is covered by the Consumer Protection Act and it is found that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. <br /> <br /> Points (ii) to (iv):- The complainant who is a lawyer by profession has approached the Forum for refund of Rs. 275/- excess amount collected from him by the opposite party along with compensation. The allegation of the complainant is that, the complainant boarded Jana Shadabdi Express on 03.12.2004, but since he came late to the Railway Station he could not take ticket from the counter and hence he got into the train without taking a ticket. The complainant has pleaded that he is the holder of season ticket which is Ext. P2 and moreover he has travelled several times from Alleppey to Trivandrum in the Jana Sadabdi Express through tickets issued from the train. From the above it is evident and it has been admitted by the complainant that the complainant who is almost a daily traveller in trains, was well aware that season ticket is not permissible in the Jana Sadabdi Express and with that knowledge he got into the Jana Sadabdi Train without a proper ticket. The complainant's further allegation that he has travelled several times from Alleppey to Trivandrum through tickets issued from the train has been controverted by the opposite party by bringing the attention of this Forum to Sec. 55 of Railways Act 1989, which says, Prohibition against travelling without pass or ticket-(1) No person shall enter or remain in any carriage on a railway for the purpose of travelling therein as a passenger unless he has with him a proper pass or ticket or obtained permission of a Railway servant authorized in this behalf for such travel. (2) A person obtaining permission under sub section (1) shall ordinarily get a certificate from the railway servant referred to in that sub section that he has been permitted to travel in such carriage on condition that he subsequently pays the fare payable for the distance to be travelled. The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complainant did not possess any such certificate issued by any authorized railway employee permitting the complainant to travel in the coach of Jan Shadabdi Express. The complainant has neither objected the same nor has produced any document to substantiate the same before the Forum. The complainant has admitted that he got into the train without taking a ticket from the counter. From the pleadings it is evident that he is almost a daily traveller in trains. The issue involved in this case is not with regard to any denial to travel in the train even after holding a valid ticket but this is a clear case of travelling in a train without a ticket. The complainant has first pleaded that since he was little late to reach the Trivandrum Central Railway station and since it was almost time for Jana Sadabdi Express to leave the station he rushed towards the train without taking a ticket from the counter and in the complaint itself in para (2) he has further pleaded that he had boarded the train with the permission of the TTE who was standing on the platform. On going through the above pleadings this Forum finds that the complainant cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. In the first para of the complaint he pleads that he rushed into the train without taking ticket since he had travelled several times from Alleppey to Trivandrum in the Jana Sadabdi Express through tickets issued from the train and from the contentions in 2nd para of the complaint the complainant pleads he had sought permission of the TTE before boarding the train. If the complainant's pleading in the 1st para of the complaint is to be believed, then why the complainant sought the permission of the TTE is unanswered. If he used to take tickets from the train, why the permission of TTE was sought has not been clarified besides the fact that the permission was sought from the TTE has not been proved by the complainant. Moreover during cross examination of DW1, the complainant had put a question to the witness that 'പരാതിക്കാരന്‍റെ കൈവശം season ticket ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു എന്നും അത് നിങ്ങളെ കാണിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തില്ലേ (Q) season ticket കാണിച്ചിട്ടില്ല (A). അങ്ങനെ season ticket കാണിച്ചു എന്നും അതിന് ശേഷമാണ് 92/- രൂപയുടെ ticket 250/- രൂപ excess charge വാങ്ങിയ excess fare ticket-ഉം വാങ്ങിയത് എന്നു പറയുന്നു (Q) season കാണിച്ചില്ല , സാധാരണ ticket check ചെയ്ത് പോയപ്പോള്‍ ticket ഇല്ല എന്നു കണ്ടു അങ്ങനെയാണ് excess fare ഈടാക്കിയത് (A). From the above questions put to the witness by the complainant himself, it has been revealed that the intention of the complainant was to travel in Jana Sadabdi Express train with the season ticket, though the complainant, PW1, knew it is not permitted. From the above facts and circumstances in this complaint, the Forum has no difficulty to hold that the complainant who was a ticketless traveller, when caught by the TTE during his routine ticket checking inside the train has been issued with an excess fare ticket as per Ext. P1.<br /> <br /> The complainant has further alleged that the above collected amount is excess and for a senior citizen like the complainant the fare is only Rs. 67/- instead of Rs. 92/-. DW1 has deposed that there is a discount of 30% for the senior citizen but they have no authority to collect so inside the train. The complainant has not controverted or challenged the same.<br /> <br /> The complainant has not established that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party and that as a consequence thereof, loss or injury was suffered by him. It is only in such event that award of compensation is warranted under the provisions of Sec. 14 (1) (d) of the Act. We are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to substantiate with sufficient evidence his claim for compensation. There is hardly any material on record to support the claim for compensation on the ground of harassment. <br /> <br /> The complainant who has been examined as PW1 during cross examination was asked “ticket ഇല്ലാതെ യാത്ര ചെയ്തതു കൊണ്ടാണ് Rs. 250/- fine-ഉം ticket charge-ഉം ഈടാക്കിയതെന്നു പറയുന്നു (Q) for which the complainant had answered that ശരിയാണ് (A). In the above circumstance, this Forum is constrained to conclude that the complainant has not come with clean hands and he has concealed some important facts and demanded relief against the opposite party, to which he was not entitled. This type of frivolous and vexatious complaints should not be allowed and such complainants should not be encouraged to file such false complaints. This Forum finds that, this is a case where the complainant has approached this Forum with a false complaint and the opposite party who is providing transport facilities by rail to the public for consideration paid by them by way of fare, levied for the ticket had to incur expenses for contesting this complaint and have been unnecessarily dragged to the District Forum. Hence this Forum dismiss the complaint with costs of Rs. 500/- to the opposite party who have been unnecessarily dragged to this Forum. The complainant should be enlightened by the fact that he cannot file false complaint and if he decides to file such complaint, he should be answerable for the costs to the opposite party which has been unnecessarily been dragged to the Forum. <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed with an amount of Rs. 500/- as costs to the opposite party within a period of one month from the date of order. <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 30th September 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 89/2005<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - L. Santha Soman<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Original Excess Fare ticket No. 103738 dated 03.12.2004.<br /> P2 - Original Railway Ticket No. 00430542 dated 16.11.2004.<br /> P3 - Original advocate notice dated 12.12.2004.<br /> P4 - Original postal receipt dated 13.12.2004.<br /> P5 - Original acknowledgment card dated 13.12.2004.<br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> DW1 - R. Devarajan <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS : <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />