Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/241/2014

THE STATION MASTER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

REVATHI - Opp.Party(s)

N.R. NARAYANEN

07 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 241 of 2014

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.44 of 2012 dated 27.01.2014 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Nagapattinam.

 

Monday, the 7^th day of February 2022

 

1. The  Station Master

    Southern Railway

    Myladuthurai Junction.

 

2.  The Chief Ticket Inspector

     Southern Railway

     Myladuthurai Junction.

 

3.  The Divisional Manager

     Southern Railway

     Tiruchirapalli.                                                                                                                                                .. Appellants/ Opposite Parties

 

- Vs –

Revathi

W/o. Ashok Kumar

3/1, Vaikalkarai Street

Koorainadu, Myladuthurai Town

Nagapattinum District.                                                                                                                                         .. Respondent/ Complainant

   

    Counsel for Appellants / Opposite Parties         : M/s.N.R. Narayanan

    Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s.M. Manoj Kumar

                                                              

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 07.02.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.       This appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam, in C.C. No.44 of 2012, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant herein, in part. 

 

2.  The respondent is the complainant and the appellants are the opposite parties.  For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as per their ranking in the complaint.

 

3.    The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that the complainant had booked a tatkal ticket on 28.04.2012 for herself and her minor daughter Deepa, to travel in Myladuthurai Express Train No.16232 on 29.04.2012.  At the time of booking the ticket, she used her Driving Licence as an ID proof.  The Ticket PNR Number is 4758619994.  On 29.04.2012 at the time of journey, the TTE has verified the Driving Licence of the complainant and affixed his signature on the ticket and allowed the complainant and her minor daughter to travel in the train.  On reaching Myladuthurai, the complainant embarked from the train and proceeded to go to her house.  While she was about to exit the railway station, a person who was standing at the gate of the railway station in a civil dress, stopped her and asked the complainant to show her identity card.  Though the complainant had a valid ticket, he imposed a penalty of Rs.1048/- and compelled her to pay the said amount.  Since, she did not have money with her, she gave her bangle to a known person standing nearby and received cash from the said person and paid the same.  It is the case of the complainant that when a TTE has allowed her and her child to travel, after verifying the ticket and the ID proof, the act committed by a railway official at Myladuthurai Railway Station, compelling the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1048/- is not correct.  It has caused mental agony and stress to the complainant.  Since, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, she had sent a legal notice on 16.05.2012.  Though the said notice was received by the opposite parties, they have not chosen to give a reply.  Hence, this Complaint has been filed, claiming the following reliefs :-    

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation towards untold mental agony and ill-treatment undergone  by the complainant ;
2. Direct to re-pay Rs.1048/- being the excess fare ticket amount that has been unnecessarily collected from the complainant, along with 18% interest ; and
3. Direct to pay the litigation expenses.

 

4.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing a version stating that in the ticket purchased by the complainant, it has been clearly mentioned that “this ticket will be valid only with an I.D. proof in original provided at the time of booking by the passenger and travelling without I.D proof, passengers will be treated as without ticket and charged as per extant rules”.  In the instant case, the complainant was travelling with a Xerox copy of the ID proof.  Therefore, there is absolutely no deficiency of service in the act of the opposite parties, for charging the passenger who had travelled without the original ID.  Though the complainant had stated that the TTE was satisfied with the ID proof produced by the complainant and permitted her to travel, the said TTE was not added as a party in the complaint.  The second appellant is the person in control of the special squad and as per the version of the squad ticket inspector, the passenger was not inspected at the railway station exit.  After alighting from the train, the passenger was taken to CTI office along with the squad ticket inspector and was informed about the rules of the railway and asked the complainant to pay Rs.1048/- as fine.  The same was accepted by the complainant and she paid the fine.  A receipt was also issued to the complainant.  Thereafter, the present complaint has been filed as an afterthought by the complainant.  The allegation of the complainant that she paid the fine amount by giving her bangle to a known person is false.  The said allegation is to invoke sympathy on the complainant.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.  In order to prove the claim, the complainant has filed 6 documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A6 along with proof affidavit.  On the side of the opposite parties, along with proof affidavit 3 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B3.  The proof affidavit of Jayachandran who checked the ticket of the complainant has also been filed on the side of the opposite parties.

 

6.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence on records, has come to the conclusion that the endorsement and initial of the TTE on Ex.A3 would go to show that the ticket and ID proof had been verified by the TTE.  The colour of ink in the endorsement and initial across the reservation slip by the TTE and the endorsement and initial at the bottom of the slip by RW2 are different.  While the reservation slip and the ID proof of the complainant is proved to have been checked by the TTE at the time of journey, the version of the opposite parties that she has not shown the original identity card as proof of her identity and hence she was charged to pay the fare with penalty cannot be accepted.  Thus, directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-as compensation towards mental agony and return the sum of Rs.1048/- collected from the complainant towards fare and penalty, along with 12% interest.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal is filed.

 

7.  Heard the submissions of the counsel for the appellants and perused the material on records.  No representation for the respondent. 

 

8.  It is the main submission of the counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties that, whether the TTE of the originating station had checked the original ID proof or whether the complainant had shown the original ID proof to the TTE is not the question involved in this case.  But the crux of the case is that the complainant has not shown the original ID proof when the Squad Ticket Checking Official asked her to produce the original ID.  If the complainant had shown the original ID proof to the TTE in the train, she would have very well shown the same to the Squad Ticket Checking Official.  It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that as per Section 13(b) and Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the power to decide the claims relating to refund of fares or part thereof is vested with the Railway Claims Tribunal only and not with any other courts or other authority and therefore the complaint itself is not maintainable.   Hence, sought to set aside the order of the District Forum and allow the appeal.

 

9.  On perusal of the order of the District Forum, we find that the District Forum has allowed the complaint only on the ground that when the TTE has permitted the complainant to travel in the train, the subsequent act of the Squad Ticket Checking Official is not correct and therefore there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  But the said finding rendered by the District Forum is not legally sustainable.  When the relevant Rule clearly states that the complainant had to produce the original ID proof whenever it is asked, either by the TTE or other Special squads, she ought to have produced the original.   But, she was not in possession of the original ID proof when the same was demanded by Squad Ticket Checking Official.  Therefore, in our opinion, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, we cannot blame the Railway Officials, in this case. 

 

10.    Therefore, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards mental agony by the District Form is set aside.  However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are directing the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.1048/- collected from the complainant towards ticket fare and penalty.

 

11.  In the result, the order dated 27.01.2014 passed in C.C. No.44 of 2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam, is modified accordingly.  Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. 

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                                                                                 R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2022