D.O.F. 22.07.2011

                                            D.O.O. 05.12.2013

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                   :                President

                   Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :               Member

                   Sri. Babu Sebastian         :               Member

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2013.

C.C.No.226/2011

K. Sreelesh,

S/o. Rethi                                                   :         Complainant

Kottali House, Azheekkal P.O.

Kannur      

(Rep. by Adv. P.V. Abhayakumar)

1.  Mr. Joseph Scaria Thomas

Chief Travelling

Ticket Inspector Office,

Sleepers Section

Palakkad Junction,                           :         Opposite Parties

Southern Railway

(Rep. by Adv. T. Ramakrishnan)

2. Indian Railway

Rep. by its General Manager,

Chennai

(Both OP 1 & 2 Rep. by Adv. T. Ramakrishnan)

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50000 together with Rs.340 paid by the complainant along with interest and cost. 

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :  The complainant is a ‘season ticket’ holder.  On 10.09.2010 opposite party had realized Rs.340 from him on the ground that he had entered into second class sleeper coach.  He only approached and requested for accommodation.  1^st opposite party directed him to find out a seat for him by himself in any other local coach.  Complainant then objected and demanded to provide a seat equal to that of the first class facility. 1^st opposite party immediately got angry and pushed him snatching the season ticket from him.  When complainant followed him requesting to give back the ticket, he was asked to pay Rs.5000 since he had entered in sleeper coach.  Complainant warned him that he would take legal action.  Then getting infuriated 1^st opposite party called police and directed him to appear before the Sub Inspector.  The police released him since there was no offence at all.  But 1^st opposite party was not ready to leave him.  He asked complainant to pay Rs.5000. It resulted in quarrel and gathering of other passenger.  He then reduced the amount to Rs.340.  The complaint, though not ready compelled to pay the amount in order to get back the season ticket.  Complainant suffered much both mentally and physically.  Hence this complaint.

The case of the opposite party on the other hand is as follows :  The seat in the train where complainant was occupied was one which was reserved to some other passenger.  He informed the complainant that he is not eligible to travel in that reserved sleeper class compartment with a 1^st class season ticket which is reserved for some other person.  Instead of changing the compartment complainant shouted and demanded to provide an equivalent seat by showing first class season ticket and also said that it is the duty of the Railway to provide him first class accommodation.  He politely told him that there was no first class compartment in that train and moreover season ticket holders are not permitted to travel in reserved coaches and requested to travel by unreserved coach.  But complainant refused to change the coach.  Thereafter complainant was handed over to Railway Protection Force without collecting any amount.  At Kannur he was left free, after collecting fare and penalty of Rs.340 and EFT No.705525 was issued to him for the amount collected by the Ticket Examiner working in the information centre.  There is no deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

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

2.   Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3.   Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral evidence adduced by complainant as PW1, Ext.A1 to A5 marked on his side, evidence adduced by DW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 marked on the side of opposite party.

          Admittedly complainant is a holder of season ticket eligible to travel in first class.  His case is that he had approached the opposite party entering in second class sleeper coach and requested for accommodation.  According to him opposite party directed him to find out a seat for him by himself in any other local coach.  Then complainant objected and demanded to provide a seat equal to that of first class facility.  It is also alleged that opposite party immediately got angry and pushed him away snatching the season ticket.  He was also asked to pay 5000 since he had entered in sleeper coach and then called police direct him to appear before him.  Police released him since there was no offence but 1^st opposite party insisted to pay 5000.  The gathering of other passengers and quarrelling resulted in reducing the amount to 340.  Complainant was not ready to pay the amount but he was compelled to pay the same since he was compelled to pay the same since he wanted to get back the season ticket.

          Opposite party on the other hand denying the allegation of complainant contended that complainant had occupied a seat which was reserved to some other passengers and opposite party informed the complainant that he is not eligible to travel in that sleeper class compartment with 1^st class season ticket.  He further contended that instead of changing the compartment the complainant shouted and demanded to provide an equivalent seat saying that it is the duty of the Railway to provide him first class accommodation.  He has also contended that complainant was very politely told that there was no first class compartment in that train and moreover season ticket holders are not permitted to travel in reserved coaches and requested to travel by unreserved coach but complainant refused to change the compartment and it was only then he was handed over to RPF without collecting any amount.  He was left free at KNR after collecting fare and penalty of 340 for which Ticket Examiner at information centre issued him E.F.T. No.705525.

          Counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that the provision does not permit complainant to enter any of the reserved coaches holding season tickets irrespective of any class as per the existing rules in force.  It is also argued that the said rule has been clearly mentioned on the ticket issued to them.  Ext. A5(a) is the First Class Super Fast Season Ticket No.3131 issued to complainant for a period from 17.08.2010 to 16.09.2010.  Ext.A5(b)is the Super Fast Sleeper Class Ticket No.277.  Guide line to passengers in Ext.A5 (a) item number 6 specifically states thus : “Not permitted to travel in Reserved Coaches”.  So also in Ext.A5 (b) item number 2, it is made clear thus : ‘Not permitted to travel in reserved coaches. Thus it is convincingly clear that as a matter of fact complainant is not legally entitled to travel in a reserved coach.  But it does not mean that under no circumstances a season ticket holder is permitted to travel in a reserved coach.  It is absolutely clear from Ext.B3 that a season ticket holder is entitled to travel even in reserved coaches under certain occasions subjected to distance restrictions applicable on the concerned train.  Moreover the explanation to Super Fast Surcharge Ticket in Ext.B3 provides that “wherever permitted by Railway administration, the passenger can travel in reserved coaches of superfast trains also.  In such a case, he is required to purchase the superfast surcharge ticket for each journey in advance.  Ext.A5(b) proves that complainant was holding Superfast ticket Ext.B3 also made explanation that superfast surcharge will however not be levied on season ticket  holder travelling by those Super fast trains, which has total journey less than 325 Kms, from train originating to destination station.

          The close observation of rules explained above reveals that a season ticket holder is only restricted to enter in reserved coaches but not prohibited.  The very entry or mere entry to a reserved coach does not hold good to award a punishment to a passenger.

          Herein the case of the complainant is that he had approached the 1^st opposite party and requested to provide a seat in any compartment.  When the request was not heeded by the opposite party, Complainant demanded opposite party to provide a seat equal to the 1^st class facility.  Then opposite party got angry and pushed him aside snatching the reason ticket from his hand and walked away to the A/c. Compartment.  So complainant was forced to follow him requesting to give back the season ticket.  Opposite party reluctant to give the ticket back but demanded Rs.5000 as he had entered into the sleeper compartment.

          Opposite party admitted in cross examination that Ext.A5(b) is the sleeper unreserved ticket. First of all opposite party contended that complainant had occupied a seat which was reserved to some other person.  If the seat is reserved for someone there is requirement to remove the complainant from the seat.  There was no genuine attempt on the part of opposite party to prove that the seat alleged to be occupied by complainant was one reserved for some else. Ext.B2 was not proved.  Ext.B2 cannot be considered as a genuine document.  Such sort of paper can be prepared by anyone.  Opposite party failed to prove even the reservation chart.

          It is an admitted fact that there was no first class compartment in the train, though 1^st class ticket was issued for the train.  This is a special circumstance wherein the ticket holders of the first class quiet naturally be embarrassed on finding non-availability of 1^st class coach.  Complainant required accommodation only from Kanhangad to Kannur only.  After Kanhangad, Kannur is the important station.  There is no complaint that complainant resisted the occupation of the seat reserved for a lawful passenger.  The officer in charge in a way is bound to pacify the passengers who were unfortunately lost their first class facility due to non-accomodation of first class compartment.  It is pertinent to note that there was no notice of non-availability of 1^st class compartment before or after purchasing the ticket.  Under such circumstances the employees of the Railway should be more alert to handle such situation without attempting to beat down the passengers with rules and regulations.  It can be seen that there was no attempt on the part of opposite party to accommodate the complaint anywhere else.  Very soon he sought the assistance of the Railway protection Force to deal with him.  They did not take any action.  There is no evidence to show that Railway Protection Force has taken any action against complainant.  It is also difficult to believe that it was the TT in reservation counter who had realized the amount Rs.340 from complainant.  He was not examined and proved the contention of the opposite party.  Convenience of the passengers should be given first priority, which had been totally absent in the case in hand.  When the season ticket is taken away by the opposite party there is no other go for the complainant except to follow him.  So also he had no other way except paying the amount in order to get back the season ticket.  Season ticket is one which everyone knows that it affects the day today journey of a passenger.  Though denied opposite party did not make clear when did he return the ticket to complainant after this examination.  The absence of explanations to that aspect, especially when complainant place allegation with stress on the same leads to presume that it was the season ticket made use of by the opposite party to teach the complainant in the given situation.  It is understandable if the complainant is a ticketless traveler. It is pertinent to note that complainant had been put under embarrassment on realizing the fact that there was no first class compartment attached to that train.  Under such situation it is quite understandable that a passenger like complainant would seek shelter before the officials to manage an accommodation.  If there is no answer for the non-availability of expected accommodation the concerned officials should act in such a way creating an impression that he was co-operating with the passengers to find a way out, failure of which can only be considered as failure of fruitful implementation of rules and regulations concerned intended for the benefit of the passengers.  The opposite parties failed to prove the reasonable cause for which complainant was handed over to RPF.  It is not proved that he had done such an offence sufficient enough to hand over the passenger to RPF.  No record goes to show that any of the act committed by the complainant amounts to violation of rules and regulations in the strict  sense.  Opposite parties even failed to produce the concerned reservation chart so as to prove that it was required to remove the complainant from the particular seat where he was alleged to be occupied.  One cannot ignore the fact that one way or the other Railway is obliged to accommodate the passengers those who were taken ticket in the train.  Since such first class coach had not been attached to that train.  Opposite party failed to bring out the respective rules how to deal with the passengers under such a situation.  There is bounden duty on the part of Railway authority to make explanation that there were proper adjustment of accommodation for such passengers and the performance of duty on their part carried out properly so as to minimize the difficulties suffered by passengers out of the inability to provide first class coach to that train. All these facts have been taken together it can only be come into conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  It is unjustifiable to blame the complainant for asking the concerned officials for accommodation and cannot be consider it as a violation of law.  Hence the facts and circumstances available to be considered in the usual course of dealings leads to presume that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and natural justice has been denied to complainant.

          In the light of the above discussion we are of opinion that opposite parties are liable for the deficiency in service and opposite parties shall return the fine amount Rs.340 they received from the complainant.  Complainant is also entitled for an amount Rs.5000 as compensation and Rs.1000 as cost.  Thus issues No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the complainant.

          In the result, complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to return the fine amount Rs.340 (Rupees Three Hundred and Forty only) and an amount of Rs.5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation together Rs.1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of this proceeding within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

          Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2013.

                           Sd/-                       Sd/-              Sd/-

                       President               Member          Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Receipt dated 10.07.2010.

A2. Copy of Lawyer notice dated 15.09.2010.

A3 (a) & (b). Acknowledgment cards dated 17.09.2010 & 21.09.2010.

A4. Acknowledgment letter dated 27.09.2010.

A5 (a) & (b). Train tickets.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.  Copy of reply dated 15.11.2010.

B2.  Extract of dispatch register dated 23.11.2010.

B3.  Copy of Rules of Indian Railway Act and Indian railway conference

       association Coaching Tariff No.26.

B4.  Copy of Section 54, 55(1) and 155(1) of the Railway Act, 1989.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

DW1.  Joseph Scariya Thomas

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT