KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 254/2013
JUDGMENT DATED: 25.04.2013
(Against the order in CC. 146/12 on the file of CDRF,Kannur,dt:29.01.2013)
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT
The Divisional Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,
Palakkad-678 002. : APPELLANT
(By Adv: Sri. S.Ranganathan)
Vs.
Haridasan, S/o Anandan,
T.V.House, Valiyannoor.P.O, : RESPONDENT
Varam, Kannoor District,
PIN – 670 594.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed by the 2nd opposite party in CC.146/12 on the file of CDRF, Kannur under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated, January 29, 2013.
2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: PW1 booked Tatkal Seva Journey cum reservation ticket in Maveli Express from Trivandrum to Kannur. On March 21, 2012 when he boarded the train and the 4th opposite party, the train ticket examiner came for inspection and demanded the ID proof. He handed over the election ID card and ID card issued by the Bar Association, Kannur and the identity card issued by the Chairman, Bar Council of Kerala and also his driving license. On the ground that the complainant did not produce the identity card mentioned in the ticket he was allowed to travel in the train on payment of excess fare of Rs.250/- and the train ticket fare Rs.212/-. The 4th opposite party insulted the complainant infront of his co-passengers. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint claiming Rs.462/- being the excess amount collected and the compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
3. The first opposite party is the General Manager, Southern Railway. The appellant/2nd opposite party is Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway. 3rd opposite party is Station Master, Railway Station, Kannur and 4th opposite party is one Mrs.Rajani, the train ticker examiner on that day. They in their version contended that complainant did not produce the identity card as mentioned in the ticket and that therefore he was treated as a ticketless traveler and fine was imposed. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on his side. The 4th opposite party was examined as DW1 before the Forum. No document was produced by the opposite parties.
5. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that complainant produced sufficient documents to prove his identity and that there is deficiency of service on the part of the railways and directed them to refund Rs.462/- being the excess fare collected and to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- and a cost of Rs.,500/-. The 2nd opposite party, the Divisional Manager, Southern Railway has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
6. When the appeal came up for admission the counsel for the appellant was heard.
7. On going through the records and the order of the Forum I find no ground to admit the appeal. DW1 when cross-examined admitted that PW1 produced the documents mentioned in the complaint for proving his identity. It is nowhere stated in the ticket or any other document to show that the particular ID card mentioned in the ticket which was shown at the time of reserving the ticket should be produced by the complainant. Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the 4th opposite party. The action of the 4th opposite party has caused much inconvenience and embarrassment to the complainant. The Forum has ordered to refund Rs.462/- being the excess fare collected and Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. I find no ground to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.
In the result there is no ground make out to admit the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI: PRESIDENT
VL.
