Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

230/2014

S.Jayaraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.Kannabiraman - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Rajagopal

28 Apr 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  28.11.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  28.04.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 28^th   DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

C.C.NO.230/2014

 

 

 

S.Jayaraman, Age 66

S/o Shanmuga Nadar,

6/125, 3^rd Street, P.M. Swami Colony,

R.S.Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. J.Kannabiraman,

Rs-II/MAS, Southern Railway,

Chennai Division, Chennai – 600 003.

 

2. G.Gayatri, Southern Railway,

Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,

Chennai and PIO (Commercial) Chennai – 600 003.

 

3. Jerin G.Anand Southern Railway,

Divisional Commercial Manager, (I)

Chennai and PIO (Commercial) Chennai – 600 003.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 05.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for Opposite Parties                  : M/s.N.R.Narayanen, A.P.Sathya

                                                                   Moorthy & T.Arul Selvan                

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming a compensation of Rs.90,000/- for mental agony and expenses of Rs.470/- with 18 % interest with litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/-  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

           The Complainant had reserved ticket at Chennai on 8.4.2014 to travel in the Inter City Express, Train No.12679, on 8.5.2014 from Chennai to Coimbatore on payment of Rs.110/-.  However the ticket was issued by the Opposite Party to travel on 2.5.2014 instead of 8.5.2014.  Hence the Complainant has sent an application on 9.4.2014 on the very next day under RTI Act seeking for the copy of his reservation application form for reservation.  The 2^nd Opposite Party had furnished the information that the ticket issued by sri. J. Kannabiraman and also enclosed the copy of the reservation form.  However the fact remains the copy of reservation form was not enclosed and hence he filed an appeal to the 3^rd Opposite Party.  The 3^rd Opposite Party furnished the copy of reservation form.  Since incorrect particulars are furnished to the Complainant under RTI Act, the Complainant put to shock and mental agony.  Then the Complainant wrote a letter to the 1^st Opposite Party and he did not send any reply.  The Opposite Parties issued ticket for 2.5.2014 instead of 8.5.2014 is deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties and such act also caused mental agony to the Complainant.  Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint seeking expenses of Rs.470/- towards correspondences and also the compensation of sum of Rs.90,000/- for mental agony with a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY  ADOPTED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 3 IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant submitted 4 reservation forms on 8.4.2014 at about 7.40 p.m. in the MMC Railway Reservation office.  Although 2 forms are only accepted at a time, the reservation staff on seeing that the complainant was an aged person, issued tickets for all the forms.  The journey date was however wrongly printed as 2.5.2014 instead of 8.5.2014 in one of the tickets.  Before leaving the counter passengers are also required to check the tickets in their own interests and in case of any error on the part of the staff, the procedure is that the staff concerned will take approval from the Chief Reservation Supervisor and issue correct ticket without collecting extra charges.  In this case, the Complainant had noticed the error, he could have represented to the administration directly for issuing the correct ticket and the Administration would have carried out the correction to the complete satisfaction of the complainant instead of collecting details by filing the RTI application. 

3. The complainant had purchased the railway reservation ticket on 8.4.2014 and in order to obtain information about the correct journey date, he submitted an application dated 9.4.2014 under the RTI Act, 2005 to the 2^nd Opposite Party.  The Complainant has alleged that the complete information was not furnished in the reply and that the reservation ticket was wrongly issued for journey on 2.5.2014 instead of 8.5.2014.  The Complainant has filed the present consumer Complaint praying for the compensation of Rs.90,000/-and costs at Rs.2000/- and additional costs of Rs.470/- with 18% interest on the grounds of alleged mental agony and loss.

4. Only after the Complainant issued letter dated 28.4.2014 to the 1^st Opposite Party, the employee realized his mistake.  He contacted the Complainant on his cell phone and requested the Complainant to come to the reservation office and get the journey date corrected.  The employee further offered to collect the ticket himself at Chennai or otherwise if the Complainant was unable to visit the reservation office and handed over the new ticket at the convenience of the Complainant.  After much effort, though the Complainant finally agreed to meet the employee at the Chennai central railway station during his departure but he did not turn up. When the employee enquired, the complainant informed that he had boarded the train at Tiruvallur.  The employee had acted in reply to the Complainant’s letter but the complainant only did not show any genuine interest in getting the date corrected before time.  But now for strange reasons, the Complainant has come forward to file this consumer Complaint alleging incorrect facts. The Complainant filed this frivolous application and the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant has submitted Ex-A7 reservation form on 8.4.2014 for booking a ticket for travel from Chennai to Coimbatore on 8.5.2014 and however the 1^st Opposite Party issued ticket for 2.5.2014 instead of 8.5.2014 and the copy of the said ticket is marked as Ex-A1 and on the very next day the Complainant sought certain information under RTI Act, and Ex-A2 to A8 are the applications of the Complainant and the reply of the Opposite Parties 2&3. 

          7. The Complainant alleged deficiency against the Opposite Parties is that the Opposite Parties issued Ex-A1 as wrong ticket to travel on 2.5.2014 instead of 8.5.2014.

          8. The Opposite Parties pleaded in their written version that on the date of reservation the Complainant submitted 4 reservation forms on 8.4.2014 at about 7.40 p.m.in the MMC Railway Reservation Office. Further, only 2 forms are only accepted at a time, the reservation staff on seeing that the Complainant is an aged person as a gesture issued tickets for all the 4 reservation forms and however in only one ticket wrongly printed as 2.5.2014 instead of 8.5.2014 and before leaving the counter the passengers have to check the tickets in their own interest and in case of any error on the part of the staff, they can very well Complain and rectify the error at that instance itself.  The Complainant has not denied that he had booked by furnishing 4 reservation forms, even though at a time only 2 reservation forms could be entertained by the Opposite Parties.

          9. The Opposite Parties admitted their mistake. Similarly the Complainant has also admitted the submission of 4 applications. In such circumstances, it is learnt that in one of the ticket the date was wrongly printed which is only a typographical error by feeding a wrong date.  Normally, in the reservation counters there is always a long queue waiting to reserve the tickets.  Therefore, naturally a person in the counter on duty having pressure of work, this kind of typographical error may occur occasionally.  Hence, such a typographical error occurred in respect of the journey date cannot be a willful one of the Railway Employee. 

10. As rightly pointed out by the Opposite Party the prime duty of the passenger who books a ticket has to check the date of journey and other particulars before leaving the place. If he finds any error in the ticket the same can be brought to the knowledge of the concerned employee immediately in order to rectify the same.  But the Complainant failed to do so on that day even though he is well aware of the fact of error in the date of journey. In fact, after taking his own time, only on the next day instead of seeking to rectify the said error, he sought for the copy of his reservation form which clearly shows the intention of the Complainant to flare up the issue.    Furthermore, it is seen that the only intention of the Complainant seeking information under RTI Act, clearly establishes that he collected information is only to file Consumer Complaint.

        11.   It is crystal clear that there is a gap of one month time in between the booking date and the date of journey. Such being so, in between the said duration period he could have very well asked the Opposite Parties to rectify the mistake and issue a fresh ticket for his journey on 8.5.2014.  It is further learnt that on knowing about the issue of ticket with wrong date of journey by the 1^st Opposite Party through the letter written by the Complainant to his higher authorities, immediately he had voluntarily contacted the Complainant in his mobile number on 24.04.2014 which is found in Ex. A7 offered to collect fresh ticket at Chennai and if he is unable to visit the reservation office, the new ticket will be handed over at the convenience of the Complainant. But the Complainant has not chosen to utilize the same. The Opposite Parties filed Ex-B1 proof for contacting the Complainant.    During oral arguments the Complainant also accepted that the Opposite Parties have contacted him in respect of his ticket.  However, the Complainant had not taken the opportunity to collect the correct date of ticket.

12. If the consumer finds any mistake in the service or in the product purchased they have to give an opportunity to the other party to rectify the same and even after failed to rectify the defect then only the Complaint can be filed.  In this case, it is crystal clear that even though the Complainant has knowledge about the wrong date immediate to the purchase of the ticket and sought copy of reservation form under the RTI Act on the very next day clearly establishes that the intention of the Complainant is that even for small mistakes, he wants to file consumer complaint only to enrich himself.  Therefore, considering the circumstances of the case, it is held that the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

13. Furthermore, it is advisable to the Opposite Parties to print in the back flip of the ticket advising the passengers to verify if any error occurred in the ticket issued after collecting from the booking counter to avoid this kind of incidence.

14. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th day of April 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.04.2014                   Ticket issued for date of journey 02.05.2014

                                                    instead of 08.05.2014

 

Ex.A2 dated 09.04.2014                   RTI letter

Ex.A3 dated 21.04.2014                   2^nd Opposite Party  reply letter

Ex.A4 dated 20.04.2014                   Appeal letter addressed to ADRM – II               

Ex.A5 dated 28.04.2014                   Letter addressed to the  1^st Opposite Party

Ex.A6 dated 30.04.2014                   Reply letter sent by the 3^rd Opposite Party  to the

                                                    Complainant

Ex.A7 dated 30.04.2014                   Copy of the reservation form dated 08.05.2014

Ex.A8 dated 11.05.2014                   Appeal Letter –II  to ADRM- II

Ex.A9 dated 08.05.2014                   Train ticket           Chennai to Coimbatore

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Out going particulars of the Opposite Parties

                                                    mobile number 919445402785

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT