BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 58/2010 Filed on 19.02.2010
Dated : 15.12.2010
Complainant:
K. Balakrishnan, Kalarikkal Parambil Veedu, Thiruvali Post, Malappuram- 679 348.
(Appeared in person)
Opposite party:
Railway Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Office of the Divisional Manager, Thiruvananthapuram-14.
(By adv. S. Renganathan)
This O.P having been taken as heard on 08.11.2010, the Forum on 15.12.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant with family travelled by train of the opposite parties on 11.02.2008 from Thiruvananthapuram to Kanyakumari, that when the train reached Eranial station complainant entered into the sleeper coach compartment, that 2 TTEs entered into the same compartment and demanded the complainant to furnish the ticket, that when complainant showed the ticket the TTEs told him that they are ordinary tickets and a person with ordinary ticket could not enter the sleeper coach, and that the TTEs levied a penalty of Rs. 300/-. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs. 300/- along with compensation and costs.
Opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the complainant possessed only a second class Mail/Express Ticket for himself, that the ticket checking staff were performing their assigned duties in 6526 Express from Trivandrum Central to Kanyakumari, that they found the complainant occupying the sleeper coach with a lower class ticket, they explained the rules regarding the penalization and complainant readily paid the amount with full understanding and free will, that complainant has signed the receipt issued to him. Complainant has violated the relevant rules and travelled in a higher class with a lower class ticket. As such he is stopped from arguing that the penalty was imposed for a wrong reason. The allegation that the ticket examiners were not wearing name badges is false, the allegation that the ticket examiners had threatened the complainant is also made with ulterior motives, that the charges collected from the complainant was less than the actual fair which ought to be collected due to the clerical mistake of the ticket examiners. As per the rules the difference of fare, reservation charge and penal amount need to be collected in such cases. The ticket checking staff had collected Rs. 38/- less than the actual amount due. Opposite parties did not commit any error or lapse on their offered service, but acted according to the rules formulated in response to the legislation. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 300/- along with compensation and costs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has marked Exts. P1 to P3. Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite party. Opposite party has no oral evidence but furnished rules regarding penalties imposed for various irregularities.
Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, complainant travelled in 6526 Express from Thiruvananthapuram Central to Kanyakumari on 11.02.2008. In his cross examination by the opposite party complainant has admitted that he was holding a general compartment ticket and TTE found him in a sleeper coach. They demanded ticket and examined it and found that it was a second class ticket. He has also admitted in his cross examination that TTE has levied fine of Rs. 300/-after examining the ticket in hand. It has been deposed by the complainant that he was in sleeper coach at the time of examination by TTE and he occupied the said coach to meet his friend Mr. Rajan, a chess player. But he did not take any steps to examine Mr. Rajan to establish the veracity of his deposition. It has been the stand of the opposite party that TTEs found the complainant occupying a sleeper coach at Eranial station with a lower class ticket. They explained the rules regarding the penalization and complainant readily paid the amount with full understanding and free will and complainant has signed the receipt issued to him by the opposite party. As such the allegation that penalty was imposed for a wrong reason is false. According to opposite party the consequences of violating the rule and penal provisions are published in the Southern Railway Public Time Table, July 2008-June 2009 published from time to time for the information of the public at large. Sec. 60 of the Railways Act 1989 clearly empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. As such rules were made and relevant rules are contained in the Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff, Part I Volume I (2003). It is the stand of the opposite party that ticket checking officials are empowered to impose penalty on defaulting passengers as per relevant rules. Opposite party has furnished a copy of the relevant portion (page 248, 249) of the time table July 2008-June 2009 along with the Rules regarding penalties. Complainant has no case that he got reservation in sleeper class but he travelled in sleeper class. Admittedly, he was in the sleeper coach when the TTE examined the ticket of the complainant. There is no point in dispute that complainant boarded the train with a second class ticket and at the time of examination by TTE he was in the sleeper coach. Ext. P1 series consist of copy of the tickets and receipt issued by the opposite party towards excess fare ticket. Ext. P1(b) is the excess fare ticket. The reason for charge mentioned there in is “found in sleeper coach having second class ticket”. The complainant has signed in it. Complainant has produced 4 tickets which do not show that his family members were travelling in the second class nor makes legal his journey in sleeper coach holding the second class ticket. As per Rules furnished by the opposite party, when irregularity is found in travelling in a higher class or travelling beyond booked destination, penalty has to be imposed as under: “the difference in fares upto the point of detection with equal amount of excess charges subject to a minimum of Rs. 250/-. Difference in fares will be collected from the point of detection to the destination of the passenger as per ticket held; if accommodated in higher class. If there is no accommodation, the passenger will be detrained from higher class and will be directed to go to the class for which he originally holds the ticket”. As per Ext. P1(b) excess fare ticket, opposite party has charged Rs. 300/- towards fare and excess fare. Since opposite party has acted as per the rules we do not find anything to attribute deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing excess fare ticket to the complainant who boarded the train with a second class ticket and occupied a sleeper coach. In view of the above and of the documents available on records we find complaint has no substance which deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear and suffer their costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of December 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 58/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - K. Balakrishnan
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of the tickets and receipts issued by opposite parties.
P1(b) - Excess fare ticket
P2 - Copy of letter dated 19.02.2008 issued by the complainant.
P3 - Letter dated 29.02.2008 addressed to the complainant.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
PRESIDENT
jb
