KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  389/11

JUDGMENT  DATED 06.03.2012

PRESENT:-

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU       :     PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR     :    MEMBER

 APPELLANT

The Divisional Manager,

Southern Railway, Divisional Office,

Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

                        (  Rep. by Adv. Sri.  S. Renganathan )

                                      Vs

RESPONDENT

Dr. Liyaqath Ali,

Head of Department of Arabic,

Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam

                      (Rep. by Adv. Smt. R.Suja,  Amicus curiae)

JUDGMENT 

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           ;   MEMBER

The various directions such as refund of Rs. 15/- with interest at 12% per annum from 26.03.2009, payment of compensation of Rs. 2000/- cost of Rs. 1,000/- instructions to publish particulars regarding  dereserved Sleeper Class coaches , instructions to give indications regarding the alleged dereserved Sleeper Coach on the ticket and the direction to dis continue the practice of collecting reservation charges at the dereserved Sleeper Coaches of the  CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C. 204/09 are assailed in this appeal by the opposite party.

The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he took a sleeper Class ticket from Ernakulam to Vadakara in the Mangala Super Fast Express and that while he was traveling,  the T.T.E. forcibly collected Rs. 15/- from him stating to be the reservation charges for traveling in that compartment.  It is the case of the complainant that the collection of Rs. 15/- in addition to the charges for the sleeper class ticket is unfair trade practice and in the complaint he prayed for directions to the opposite party to refund the amount with interest, compensation and costs.  He has also alleged that he was humuliated by the railway authorities in front of his fellow passengers.

In the version filed by the opposite party it was submitted that dereserved Sleeper Class Ticket Holders are not allowed to travel in the reserved sleeper class coaches and if seats are available, the ticket holders are permitted to travel on payment of Rs. 15/- as additional charges towards reservation charges.  It was also submitted that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in collecting Rs. 15/- from the dereserved Sleeper Class ticket holders when they travel in reserved compartments.

The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as Pw1 and Exts. A1 and A2 on his side.  The head ticket Examiner, Ernakulam was examined as Dw1 and Exts. B1 and B2 are marked on the side of the opposite party.

 Heard both sides.

The main question advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is regarding the direction to refund the reservation charges of Rs. 15/- collected from the complainant with interest, compensation and costs.  It is his very case that the T.T.E had collected the amount of Rs. 15/- from the complainant for the reason that he tried to travel in a reservation compartment whereas he was not having a reserved sleeper class ticket.  It is submitted by him that the complainant was having only a dereserved sleeper class ticket and with that ticket he could travel in a dereserved sleeper class compartment only.    He has also submitted that the action of the T.T.E is well protected as per Ext. B2,   the circular issued by the senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division.  It is also the case of the counsel for the appellant that the dereserved sleeper class compartments are known to the T.T.Es of the trains concerned and if the complainant wanted to travel in the dereserved compartment he could have enquired and confirmed such type of dereserved compartments and could travel without paying additional charges of  Rs. 15/-  It is argued by him that the Forum below had traversed  its jurisdiction and had passed the order which is only to be set aside.

On an appreciation of the entire facts, evidence and also on hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the amicus curiae for the respondent,   we find that the main thrust given by the appellant is with regard to Ext. B2, the circular issued by the additional commercial manager.  On a perusal of the said Ext. it is found that for traveling in a reserved compartment the dereserved sleeper class ticket holders are expected to pay Rs. 15/- in addition to the fare collected from the passengers.  In the instant case we find that the T.T.E. had collected the said amount when the complainant tried to travel in the reserved compartment.  The complainant had no case that he was not traveling in a reserved compartment.  He had also no case that he had a reserved sleeper class ticket.  In the backdrop of the above facts and circumstances we are of the view that the action of the T.T.E is perfectly in order.  We find no deficiency in service and the direction of the Forum below to refund Rs. 15/- with interest; compensation and costs are only to be set aside.  However the instruction regarding the indication of dereserved sleeper class coaches on the ticket it self can be upheld.  The opposite party is expected to indicate the dereserved sleeper class coaches in the ticket itself so as to enable the passengers to travel by the dereserved Sleeper Class Coaches.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order dated 31.8.2010 of CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C. 204/09 is set aside.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                             S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR  :  MEMBER

                        JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU     :  PRESIDENT

ST