<br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking compensation.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> On 1.10.2006 at about 5p.m. the complainant demanded a concession ticket at the Ticket counter of Kollam Railway Station showing the copy of a medical certificate issued by a Doctor of the Medical Collage Hospital, <br /> Thiruvananthapuram. Thereupon the original was demanded and he produced the original certificate containing the office seal of the medical college hospital and the photograph of his son in respect of whom the certificate was issued. The Opp.party 4 after a verifying the certificate said that below signature of the doctor, there is no seal containing the name and registration number of the doctor who issued the same but it was hand written and therefore concession certificate cannot be issued. The complainant told the 4th opp.party that using the certificate he has performed journey earlier and on that day itself at 2.30 pm he traveled in Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai mail and the ticket was also shown to 4th opp.party. Thereupon the 4th opp.party took the medical certificate to opp.party 3, who went to the 2nd opp.party and as per the direction of the 2nd opp.party the complainant met the duties Station Master. He had given awritten complaint in the complaint book. The Station Master thereupon gave a copy of the complainant and said that a number of persons are traveling using bogus certificate. Thereafter the complainant and his family traveled taking ordinary ticket to Thiruvananthapuram. After reaching Thiiruvananthapuram when the complainant verified the medical certificate it was seen that below the name and registration number it was written “seal not affixed” . This entry is made by the supervisor at Kollam while he was writing the complaint in the complaint book and he did not notice the same them. The certificate was valid for 5 years from 30.2.2005 and the complainant has traveled using ticket availing concession. Due to the entries made in the certificate by opp.party 2. The certificate has been made invalid due to the conduct and irresponsible behavior of opp;.parties. The complainant suffered humiliation and mental agony and they sustained monitory loss to the tune of Rs.42. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The opp.parties filed a joint version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opp.parties could lnot be made responsible for the lapses on the part of the complainant. The certificate produced by the complainant did not have the seal containing the full name and Register Number of the doctor, as clearly noted in the concession form itself, beneath the signature of the doctor. This condition was not adhered to and hence the concession certificate was not at all valid. The concerned booking clerk and the booking supervisor had clearly explained all these matters to the complainant The complainant had admitted this fact in the complaint itself His argument that he had travelled with the same concession certificate from Thiruvanananthapuram to Kollam is not admitted by these opp.parties. Even if it is true this was an error on the part of the booking clerk at Thiruvananthapuram and such an error is not an excuse to one again violate rules knowingly. The Railways is owned by the Government and the act of the complainant in misusing the concession certificate has caused monetary loss to the national exchequer. Any further misuse would amount to cause additional leakage of revenue loss. The person eligible for concession, authority on which it is allowed etc. are enumerated in the Indian Railway Coaching Tariff No.,25, Part I, vol. II. The highlighted portion clearly points out the form of certificate as the one shown in Appendix 1/48 . The Indian Railway Commercial Manual Vol. 1 clearly enumerates about the dealing of the defective warrants, certificate or concession forms. It states that if such forms are found to be defective in any respect, or there is doubt about the genuineness and issue of tickets on them has to be refused. The booking clerk should give the refusal in writing clearly specifying the reasons for which the document cannot be accepted as valid. When there is doubt about the genuineness of the document, it should be confiscated and the matter brought to the notice of the Station Master. The allegations that the duty station master had told the complainant that such defrauding cases are common are vehemently denied as this is made with malafide intentions.. The supervisor has pointed out that the defect in the concession certificate of the complainant on specific request of the complainant when he was informed that his concession certificate was invalid. This was also meant to prevent the complainant from misusing the certificate again causing further revenue loss to the national exchequer. The complainant has ample opportunity to avail a new concession certificate with proper entries, the insistence of the complainant in using the defective certificate in its defective form against rules and not justifiable If he had used the same certificate he would have been denied concession again as per extent rules and hence noting the defect in the concession was a help and service. If the certificate was accepted it would haveattracted debit advice from the audit branch Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> 2. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Exts. P1 to P6 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1. to D5 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points: <br /> <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant is that the opp.parties refused to accept Ext.P2 certificate on the ground that the seal containing the name and reg. number of the doctor who issued the same is not stamped in the same with the result that he has to spent additional ticket charges and suffered mental agony and harassment.<br /> <br /> There is no dispute that Ext.P2 was issued in respect of the son of the complainant. There is also no dispute regarding the competency of the doctor who issued Ext.P2. Only defect, pointed out is that the seal containing name and register number of the doctor is not affixed in the certificate. It is to be pointed out that the seal is to be affixed by the doctor who issued the certificate and not by the complainant. So if at all anybody is at fault it is the doctor who issued the certificate and not the complainant.<br /> <br /> A perusal of Ext.P2 would show that it is a valid certificate issued by a compiutant authority and not a bogus or forged one. The only defect is the omission to affix a name seal by the doctor who issued the same. The complainant who applied for the certificate cannot demand the doctor who issued the certificate to affix her name seal. When the seal of the institution is affixed the document becomes a valid one and writing the name or affixing a name seal is immaterial as it has no significance. However when the specific wording seal containing full name and register number is printed on the certificate the omission in affixing the seal can be interpreted as a defect but it will in no way affect the validity orgenuiness of the certificate. Even assuming that the booking clerk is justified in denying to issue the concession ticket on the ground that name seal is not affixed he or the other opp.parties have no right to make any entries in the certificate. The defect pointed out is one which can be rectified by affixing the seal. The conduct of the opp.parties in making unnecessary entries cannot be justified as they have no authority to declare that Ext.P2 is a bogus or fraudulent invalid document<br /> <br /> It is worth pointing out in this context that PW.1 filed a written complaint before the 4th opp.party. If they were of the opinion that concession cannot be given to PW.1 on the basis of Ext.P2. 4th opp.party could have make entries in that rejecting the same . In para 13 of the version opp.parties have extracted relevant pages of Indian Railway Commercial Mannual Vol.1 which as follows: “ found to be defective in any respect or there is doubt about the genuiness and issue of tickets on them has to be refused, the booking clerk should give the refusal in writing clearly specifying the reasons for which the document cannot be accepted as valid……..when there is doubt about the genuiness of the document it should be confiscated and the matter brought to the notice of the Station Master. There is absolutely nothing in the extracted portion allowing them to make entries in the certificate. The opp.parties have no case that the name and register number of the doctor were forged in Ext.P2 by PW1. If the opp.parties were satisfied that the exhibit P2 is a forged one or bogus one, one is at a loss to understand why they failed to seize the same and take action as per rules. If the opp.parties were satisfied that Exhibit p2 is inadmissible for concession there is no reason for an apprehension that the complainant would use the same for concession again. If it is an in- admissible document none of the Railway Employer would accept the same. It is not known whether oppo.parties 1 to 4 think that the other railway employees who are likely to come across exhibit P2 are not so intelligent as they themselves . The statement of Pw1 that he had used exhibit P2 for concession for various journeys and no one else raised any objection remain un impeached. Had the defect in exhibit P2 been a material defect the other officers who had occasion to deal with the same would not have issued concession.<br /> <br /> The unwarranted writings in Ext.P1 is made by the opp.parties 1 to 4 is evident from para 17 of their versions. In para 17 of the version it is stated that by noting defect in Ext.P1 the opp.parties had rendered a service to the complainant. In our view it is an abuse of right vested in the opp.parties Ext.P2 cannot be considered as an invalid document but it suffers only a minor discrepancy which could have been rectified easily. As pointed out earlier the opp.parties could have refused to issue concession ticket to PW.1 but their conduct in making unwarranted entries in Ext.P2 and rendering the same invalid ignoring the mental agony of the father of a mentally retarded child amounts to deficiency in service. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed in part. Opp.parties 1 to 4 are directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for damaging Ext.P1 causing mental agony to the complainant and a sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs. Opp.party 5 will pay this amount to the complainant and realize the same from opp.parties 1 to 4. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 6th day of September, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Sugunachandran<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. Disability certificate<br /> P2. – Concession ticket<br /> P3. – Outpatient record<br /> P4. – Original ticket<br /> P5. – Railway ticket<br /> P6. - Notice<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. - Ajith Kumar<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. – Certificate<br /> D2. –Indian Railway Coaching Tariff Part 1 Volumn 2<br /> D3. – Attested copy of Indian Railway Coaching Tariff Part 1 Vol.2<br /> D4. – Appendix 1/48<br /> D5. – Concession certificate<br />