Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the impugned order mentioned hereinabove by which the complaint case has been decided in favour of the Respondent, this Appeal is preferred by the Kolkata Metro Railway.

The case of the Appellant is that while the Respondent was trying to cross the Exit gate of the Maidan station with a short journey token, he was intercepted and penalized u/s 137 and 138 of the Indian Railways Act.  In such circumstances, according to the Appellant, there was no reason for the Ld. District Forum to allow the complaint case filed by the Respondent.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant at great length and gone through the documents on record.

Apparently, the Respondent is a frequent metro passenger, who avails of metro services to reach his workplace from the residence almost on a daily basis.  Being a frequent commuter and given that, metro fares are prominently displayed in front of the ticket counters, it is hardly believable that, the Respondent was not aware of the actual fare from Dum Dum to Maidan station. To this, it can be added further that, any frequent metro passenger would appreciate that passing the Exit gate with a short journey token is next to impossible as the state of art technology being put in place would thwart any such misdemeanour.     

It is claimed by the Respondent that he presented a Rs. 50/- note at the cash counter and was returned Rs. 35/- by the metro employee together with the token.  Now, whether or not the Respondent was indeed at fault, that could easily be detected by counting the cash balance of the concerned cash counter.  However, instead of independently verifying the veracity of Respondent’s claim, the Metro authorities compelled him to cough up fine. This is simply bizarre - even a hardcore criminal is accorded due opportunity to prove his innocence.  In this case, however, as we find, no such privilege was given to the Respondent. 

The humiliation inflicted upon a person in such circumstances is quite understandable. It was in the fitness of things, therefore, that the Respondent decided to take the matter head on by initiating appropriate legal steps against the Appellant.

The Appellant though blamed the Respondent for not checking the value of token being displayed at the backside of the ticket issuing machine or at the entry gate of the Dum Dum station, let us put the record into perspective.  It is the first and foremost duty of the Railway staff to issue proper ticket to metro passengers.  Therefore, instead of expecting passengers to be extra-vigilant while collecting tickets, the Railway authorities should inculcate such sense of responsibility amongst its workforce. 

That apart, people avails of metro services with a view to reach their intended destinations fast.  As most of the times there remains a long queue both in front of the ticket counters and entry gates, it is normal human instinct to rush for the train soon after collecting the token from the cash counter out of the good faith that proper ticket had been issued by the ticket counter officials of Metro Railways. 

The onus of making people aware of the value of token rests with the Metro authorities.  Under no circumstances, it can pass the buck upon passengers.  Probity demands that, values of tokens are prominently embossed on the same. Not doing so is a glaring example of unfair trade practice on the part of the Metro Railway authorities. There is no valid reason for the Metro authorities to take hands off policy in this regard.

In the light of our foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity with the order impugned and accordingly, we refuse to set aside the same.

The Appeal stands dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable by the Appellant to the Respondent.