Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/405/2022

Brij Narayan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ministry of Railways - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

28 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	405 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	06.05.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	28.10.2024

 

 

 

 

Brij Narayan Singh son of Sh.Ram Sen Singh, aged about 42 years, resident of House No.479, Sector 25-D, Chandigarh.

             … … … Complainant

 

Versus

1.  Ministry of Railways through its Secretary Railways, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.

2.  Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Division, Northern Railways, Ambala, Haryana.

   … … … Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA,     MEMBER

                               

Argued by:    Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.Sahil Jain, Advocate Proxy for Sh.Vaneet Mittal & Sh.Amit Gpta, Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he purchased three railway tickets online for himself and in the name of his son Alok and daughter Priyanka from Lucknow to Chandigarh. On receipt of the amount, OP sent message and issued three confirmed tickets. In addition to that, complainant purchased two railway tickets, one for his wife Smt.Santosh and second for his daughter Sushmita, for sleeper class and paid a sum of Rs.800/- to the OPs. The date of journey was 03.12.2021 and schedule departure from Lucknow was 03.12.2021 at 22.25 and date of arrival was 04.12.2021 at 10.05 A.M. in Chandigarh. As per message received from OPs, on 30.11.2021 the seats of the complainant’s wife and daughter were in waiting list number 80 & 81 and on 03.12.2021, their waiting list number was 34 & 35.

    It is stated that complainant along with his family members started the journey as per schedule on 03.12.2021 from Lucknow, Uttar Pardesh and Berth No.10,11 & 13 in Coach No.S-4 was allotted to the complainant, his son Alok and daughter Priyanka, but no seat was allotted to his wife Santosh and daughter Sushmita as their seats were in the waiting list.

    It is stated that during journey, Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) checked the tickets of the passengers in S-4 coach. Complainant produced the confirmed tickets and with regard to the waiting tickets, he produced the same through whatsapp as the original tickets were not available with him. The Travelling Ticket Examiner demanded the original tickets which were not available with the complainant. The complainant provided the particulars of the waiting tickets with the request to confirm about the issuance of the tickets, but the Travelling Ticket Examiner did not consider the request of complainant and charged a sum of Rs.1300/- from the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid acts on the part of OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.1300/- alongwith interest and compensation for mental agony and harassment, litigation expenses.

 

2]       The OP No.1 & 2 have filed joint written version and stated that the Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) had demanded the original/proper tickets and original ID Proof which were not available with the complainant at that time. It is stated that Travelling Ticket Examiner gave sufficient time to complainant to show the original/proper ticket and original ID proof but the complainant failed to produce the same and it is only then penalty was imposed which was in accordance with the law and rules as stated in Sections 55 and 137 of The Railways Act, 1989 and Circular dated 30.08.1996 and Circular No.13 dated 16.11.2021, Government of India, Ministry of Railway, Railway Board.

    It is stated that while undertaking journey in reserved class in a train, one of the passengers booked on a ticket is required to produce one of the prescribed proofs of identity in original failing which all the passengers are treated as travelling without ticket and charged accordingly. In the present case, the complainant has failed to produce the original ticket and original ID proof, therefore, the penalty charges were recovered from him. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as well as all other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs as made in their written version.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

6]       The main issue involved in the present complaint is whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of OPs or not?

         In order to find out answer to this question, it is necessary to discuss the following facts and circumstances:-

7]       It is evident from the record of the complaint that complainant has purchased three online railway tickets for himself, his son Alok aged 15 years and his daughter Priyanka aged 18 years from Lucknow to Chandigarh and in addition to that, complainant has purchased two tickets for his wife namely Santosh and second daughter namely Sushmita aged 17 years for sleeper class and paid a sum of Rs.800/- to the OPs on 30.11.2021 for a train journey schedule to departure from Lucknow on 03.12.2021 and arrived at Chandigarh on 04.12.2021. Though the tickets of complainant, his son namely Alok aged 15 years and his daughter namely Priyanka aged 18 years were confirmed bearing berth No.10,11 & 13 in Coach No.S-4 of the above mentioned train yet the tickets of complainant’s wife namely Santosh and his another daughter namely Sushmita aged 17 years  were in waiting list and not confirmed. During the journey, the Travelling Ticket Examiner(TTE) checked the tickets of passenger and found that tickets of complainant’s wife and daughter were not confirmed. The complainant requested the Travelling Ticket Examiner(TTE) to confirm the tickets against the available berths so that the family may travel together upto departure station i.e. Chandigarh but Travelling Ticket Examiner(TTE) instead of confirming the tickets imposed fine of Rs.1300/-. So, as per complainant, imposing fine upon complainant instead of confirming the ticket amounts to deficiency in service.

8]       It is observed that complainant was travelling with his family and proof of Distribution Card for Ration Commodities issued by Chandigarh Administration is placed on record as Annexure C-1 wherein it is clear that at the time of travelling, his daughter Priyanka was aged about 18 years, whereas his another daughter Sushmita was of the age of 17 years and his son namely Alok 15 years old. So, it can safely be concluded that complainant was traveling alongwith his family out of which his son namely Alok and one daughter namely Sushmita are minor and Priyanka was just 18 years old young girl. The complainant has requested the Travelling Ticket Examiner(TTE) to confirm the tickets of his wife and minor daughter who are travelling alongwith them. The Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) instead of confirming the tickets issued a challan of Rs.1300/- to them.

9]           It is observed that public transport is meant for facility of the passengers and when a person is travelling alongwith his family consisting of minor son & minor daughter and a young daughter of tender age alongwith his wife, the law of equity and justice demands that the Travelling Ticket Examiner(TTE) should have confirmed their tickets against vacant seats instead of imposing fine upon them. Moreover, OPs have failed to place on record any document vide which it can be proved that there was no vacant berth in the coach and OPs have failed to provide them berth on this account. The burden of proof shifts to OPs to prove that berth could not be allotted to them due to non availability of it. Thus, the act of the Travelling Ticket Examiner(TTE) instead of providing confirmation to two members of the family, who are travelling together, from Lucknow to Chandigarh, a long distance of 667 kms. imposed fine of Rs.1300/-amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, complainant suffered harassment and mental agony due to negligence of OP for which he is entitled to compensation. Resultantly, the present consumer complaint is partly allowed and the OP No.2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1300/- alongwith lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed.   

        The above said order shall be complied with by the OP No.2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which OP No.2 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. of the above mentioned amounts thereafter.

 

10]      The miscellaneous application No.345 of 2024, filed on behalf of OPs for deletion of name of OP No.1 from the array of parties, stands disposed of accordingly.

 

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules 2020 & Act 2019 respectively. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28.10.2024                                                               

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA)

MEMBER