Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/263/2018

Chief Commercial Manager, Office of the General Manager,and 2 others - Complainant(s)

Versus

J. Jayasri, D/o T. Jayaraman, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. K. Muthamil Raja

05 Jan 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 3.

                      BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                      ::     PRESIDENT                       

                                         Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No.263/2018

  (Against the order in C.C. No.10/2017 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C, Nagapattinam)

                                                           DATED THE 05^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

 

1.Chief Commercial Manager,

Office of General Manager,

Southern Railway, Chennai

 

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Office of the D.R.M.Southern Railway,

Thiruchirapalli – 620 001

 

3. Divisional Commercial Manager,

Office of the D.R.M, Southern Railway,

Thiruchirapalli – 620 001                                                  ..Appellants/opposite parties

 

                                                     Vs

J.Jayasri,

D/o T.Jayaraman,

No.7, Muthu Mariyamman Kovil North street,

Velipalayam, Nagapattinam – 611 001                            ..Respondent/complainant 

 

Counsel for the Appellants/opposite parties       : M/s K.Muthamil Raja

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant          : M/s A.Srivastarce

 

            This appeal was heard on various dates and finally on 22.12.2021 and on hearing the arguments of appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission pronounced the following order today:-

ORDER

Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI:

          This Appeal was preferred by the opposite parties under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 aggrieved against the order of the District Commission Nagapattinam made in C.C.No. 10/2017, allowing the complaint.

1.The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

         

            Complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties  along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to

1. refund the ticket amount of Rs.80,
2. to return the penalty of Rs.250/-,
3. to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental agony and
4. to pay a compensation for 1 lakh for loss of reputation and self respect of the complainant.

            It was contended by the complainant that she reserved Thatkal tickets for 5 passengers  as group tickets on 1.3.2016 at Railway reservation counter in Nagapattinam for 2 train journeys one from Nagapattinam to Chennai and another from Chennai to Tirupati. On collecting the tickets from the counter she noted that she was given 3 tickets for Nagapattinam to Chennai on Chennai Express for  5 female passengers and Chennai to Tirupati on Saptagiri Express which contains only 4 female passengers leaving out the name of the complainant. The third ticket which contained the name of complainant alont with a  female passenger was given separately. When the complainant noted that the group of passengers were split and were issued two tickets separately from Chennai to Tirupati Railway station she asked for clarification but the railway clerk shouted at the complainant and asked to move out of the queue. When the complainant boarded the train from Chennai  to Tirupati in D4 compartment,  she was shocked and confused to found that her name was missing in the chart. The TTE on checking, asked the complainant to get down though she had a reserved valid tickets as her name was not found in the passengers list of coach D4. A penalty of Rs.250 was charged for travelling without ticket and an extra fare of Rs. 80/- totaling Rs.330/- was received from the complainant to continue the travel with the group ticket passengers.  Thus the complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned above.

2.         The opposite parties jointly filed version stating that the complainant was on mobile conversation while booking the tickets and the booking clerk booked the tickets only as per the request of the complainant. Further they stated that even if the booking clerk had issued a wrong ticket, it was the duty of the complainant to verify the same and if any error was found,  she could have approached the Chief booking Supervisor or the Station Manager and get the error rectified .  The opposite parties submitted that since the complainant was not in a possession of valid ticket on Saptagiri Express, the ticket examiner had collected the fare of Rs. 80/- along with the penalty of Rs. 250/- in accordance to the Rules. Hence they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3.         The complainant had  filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as to Ex.A.1 to A.16,  the opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ex.B.1 to B.3. The District Commission after perusing the pleadings and documents submitted by both the parties, partly allowed the complaint, directing the opposite parties  to jointly pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-  with cost of Rs.5000/- holding that the opposite parties had committed negligence and deficiency in service.

            Aggrieved by the same the opposite parties had come on appeal before the State Commission.

 

 

Point for consideration :

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant  and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled ?

 Point :-

4.         Heard the counsel for the appellant. Inspite of sufficient notice, the respondent did not appear and did not adduce any oral or written arguments.  The learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is only the complainant who had requested the reservation clerk to book only 4 tickets for 4 passengers separately leaving her name for the journey from Chennai to Tirupati and in addition she had requested to book a separate ticket with another female person and thus contended that  there is no fault on the part of  the reservation clerk who acted only as per  the request of the complainant. Further he argued that when the complainant had found that her name is missing she  ought to have approached the Station Master and should have complained about the fact that her name was left out but she did not do so. Thus he argued that no ordinary man will travel without verifying his name in the ticket and  sought for the appeal to be allowed.

5.         Heard the arguments and perused the documents and pleadings. On perusing the documents, we could see that the complainant along with four other aged female persons had planned to go on a pilgrimage to Tirupati and had booked tickets from Nagapattinam to Chennai and from Chennai to Tirupati.  It is seen that all the group passengers consisting of only female members had planned to travel together from Nagapattinam to Tirupathi and this view is supported by the document Ex.A.1 ticket which shows that all the 5 female passengers including the complainant had booked and travelled from Nagapattinam to Chennai Egmore jointly. When we verify Ex.A.2, the ticket from Chennai to Tirupathi it is seen that only 4 tickets were booked for 4 female passengers in coach D4 and in Ex.A.3, we could see that two tickets one for complainant and another for a female has been booked separately in coach D2. When the fact remains that all the 5 passengers are female passengers and except the complainant all other 4 passengers are above the age of 50 years, it is normal prudence that all the 5 people likes to travel together.

6.         In such circumstances the contention raised by the opposite parties that the complainant requested a separate ticket for herself along with another unknown female passenger seems to be unacceptable. Further all the 5 passengers wanted to travel together is strengthened by Ex.A.16, the return ticket booked by the complainant for the return journey for all 5 passengers together on 5.3.2016 from Tirupati to Chennai. When things being so, treating the complainant who had a valid ticket but in a different coach  as a ticketless passenger and charging penalty of Rs. 250/- with the ticket fare of Rs. 80/- by the TTE, clearly amounts to negligence and deficiency in service. For the act of the agent, the principal should be held liable. Hence for the negligent act of the reservation clerk at the Nagapattinam railway station, the opposite parties should be held responsible. Therefore in our considered opinion, the findings arrived at by the District Commission holding that the opposite parties have committed negligence and deficiency in service and that they are liable to compensate the complainant is justified and requires no interference. Thus we answer the point in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

 

        In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost .

 

Sd/-                                                                                                                         Sd/-

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                         R. SUBBIAH             

          MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT