Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/165

commercial manager southern railways - Complainant(s)

Versus

sasikumar p m - Opp.Party(s)

s renganathan

18 Nov 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.165/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 18/11/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.363/2010  dt. 22/12/2014 on the file of CDRF,Kozhikode)

 

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                       :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANT:

            Commercial Manager,

          Southern Railways,

 Palaghat Division.

 

(By Adv:  S. Renganathan)                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENT:

            Sasikumar  P.M.,

S/o.Narayana Marar P.M.,

‘Sreyas’, Vengeri P.O., Kannadikkal,

Kozhikode-673 010.

 

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Appellant is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C.No.363/2010 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode who preferred this appeal wherein the Forum Below directed the  1^st opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.340/- and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

          2.  The case of the complainant is that on 27/09/2010 at about       4.30 am the complainant reached the Kozhikode Railway Station to go to Kasargod.  After purchasing the ticket the complainant reached Plat form No.4  the Malabar Express which was expected to arrive there, by that time, it was announced that the train would be late around 3 hours.  Another train was in the same track No.2685 which was about to depart to Mangalore.  As the train to which the complainant intended to get in was late, the complainant was hurriedly walking along Flat form.  The complainant was searching the general compartment and when he reached S-5 compartment the 1^st opposite party standing there wrongfully restrained the complainant.  It is the allegation of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party after restraining the complainant proclaimed that there is matter of increasing theft in the train and remarked that the complainant as a robber.  It is further stated that the suit case kept by the complainant is a stolen property from some other compartment and was moving hurriedly to escape.  In order to search the complainant’s suit case the 1^st opposite party called assistance of the Police man who was in the train.  The 1^st opposite party illegally confined the complainant in the plat form and when the train started       he was compelled to get into S-5 Coach where the 1^st opposite party was on duty.  The complainant tried to convince that he is a Lawyer and his where abouts but everything ended against the complainant.  The opposite party searched the complainant’s suit case before other passengers inside the compartment and the 1^st opposite party continued to insult and abused the complainant by unnecessary remarks.  The 1^st opposite party collected Rs.340/- from the complainant as fare and extra fare and this act is illegal and unjust.  It is stated in the complaint that the 1^st opposite party demanded excess amount of Rs.50/- without issuing receipt.  The complainant questioned the misdeeds of the 1^st opposite party which created untold miseries to the complainant.  It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite party tried to break the communal harmony. The complaint is filed against the opposite parties to return the excess fare amount of Rs.340/- and Rs.4 Lakhs as compensation for mental agony and cost of proceedings.

          3.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased the ticket from Kozhikode to Kasargod and proceeded to platform No.4 to board in the Malabar Express No.6629 which was running late by 3 hours.  It is contended that  nowhere in the complaint stated that the Thiruvananthapuram - Mangalore Maveli Express (Train No.6604) was already on platform No.1 at 4.25 am and that Train left by 4.50 hours.  The complainant purposely avoided Train No.6604 and boarded in Train No.2685 which arrived at Kozhikkode Station at           4.40 hours and left at 5.5 hours.  The complainant intended to travel in Superfast Train with limited stop.   While boarding in the Superfast Train the complainant has not purchased a Superfast surcharge ticket in order to travel in the superfast train.  The ticket purchased earlier by the complainant under Train No.6629 was not sufficient to travel in Train No.2685 which is a Superfast Train.  The complainant had to  travel only in express train and not in Superfast Train with express train ticket the complainant has committed irregularity under Section 137 of the Railways Act 1989 by boarding in a Superfast Express with a 2^nd Class Express fare ticket.  It is a penalty imposed on the irregularity for travelling without supplementary charge ticket in Superfast Train.  It is on declining to pay the excess fare of Rs.340/- the assistance of RPF Constable was sought by the 1^st opposite party thereafter the complainant remitted the amount.  The penalty realized from the complainant is the legitimate revenue of Railways for not adhering to the Rules.  The other allegations raised by the complainant are false and frivolous in order to tarnish the image of the employees of the Railways.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the amount collected as penalty is entitled by the opposite parties as per the Act.

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimonies of the complainant as PW1, PW2, PW3 and 1^st opposite party as RW1.  The documents were marked on the side of the complainant as Exbts: A1 to A8. 

          5.  It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant/1^st opposite party restricted the entry of the respondent in S-5 compartment of Superfast Train Mangalore Express as he was holding only express fare ticket.  To enter the Superfast Train, he has to take additional fare ticket.  It is a common case that the TTs or the Railway Officials will advise the passengers to correct that mistake before the train stops at next station.  In this case also, the respondent mistakenly boarded in a Superfast Train from Kozhikkode to Kasargod by using a 2^nd class express ticket.  The respondent entered in a moving train and just got inside.   When the     TTE-in-Charge of the Coach asked the respondent to remit the fine, it is the respondent who shouted that he is a lawyer and is not ready to pay any rupee and if necessary the fine will be remitted in the Court and not to the TTE.  This incident constrained the TTE for the assistance of the RPF and forced to pay the amount and the receipt was duly issued to the respondent.  The respondent himself entered the train without the proper ticket and resisted to pay the penalty as per the Railways Act.  The Railway is entitled to charge penalty for the amount if the passengers are entering in a Superfast Train with express train ticket.  The respondent miserably failed to examine the witnesses and the witnesses appeared before the Forum Below were none other than his own clerk and his fellow lawyer.  Nobody from outside witnessed the incident.  The 1^st opposite party discharged his duties entrusted on him as per law.  It is also evident that the respondent was moving in the platform looking for the general compartment and when he reached nearby S-5 apartment, the TTE restrained is nothing but a concocted story.  It is also relevant that the TTE will not force any passenger to get into the train when a train stands in the station.  The sole reason for framing the complaint by the respondent is the revenge for remitting the penalty in the Superfast train.  The complaint is filed without any basis and the respondent is not entitled to get back the amount remitted.  Since the amount collected as penalty for travelling in a superfast train with second class express ticket is only a legitimate action on the part of the TTE and it is the revenue of the railways as well.  The District Forum interfered in the matter and directed to pay back the penalty imposed on the complainant  and  awarded compensation.

          6.  Though notice served on the respondent, the respondent remained absent.

          7.  We have heard the counsel and had gone through the records.  It is an undisputed fact that the respondent intended to go from Kozhikode to Kasargod.  It is also not in dispute that complainant arrived at Railway Station in time.  It is on arrival it came to notice that the Malabar Express which was expected to arrive there was late by 3 hours due to unforeseen reasons.  The pleading in the complaint that the complainant who was walking hurriedly along the platform, near the Train No.2685 which was about to depart to Mangalore, whereas the complainant was looking for the general compartment and when he reached near S-5 compartment the first appellant  who was standing there wrongfully restrained the complainant near that train.  This was supported by the witnesses of the respondent that the TTE restrained the respondent and proclaimed that there is matter of increasing theft in train and remarked that the respondent as a robber.  Further pleading in the complaint is that the suit case kept by the complainant is a stolen property from other compartment and is moving hurriedly to escape.  Nothing is coming out in evidence that the respondent had to undergo searching out by the TTE inside the compartment.  The  allegation that the TTE penalized the respondent Rs.340/- as the respondent was having express train ticket.  As per the deposition of PW3 the respondent was forced to enter into the coach by the TTE.  We would like to point out that the respondent who is a Lawyer  resisted payment of the penalty and the TTE called for the assistance of the RPF on denial of payment.  Thereafter the respondent remitted Rs.340/- as he was having only express train with him whereas the respondent entered in a superfast train.  It is an admitted fact that the respondent was travelling in superfast train No.2685 and he is liable to take a fresh ticket in a superfast train otherwise the passenger is bound to pay the penalty.  In the instant case, the TTE had done his duty as the respondent was not having a superfast train.  It is also in the pleadings that the complainant intended to travel from Kozhikode to Kasargod in Malabar Express.  The other allegation that the TTE forcefully entrained the respondent to the superfast train in S-5 is made out story for filing the complaint.  The respondent very well could have taken a witness who travelled from Kozhikkode to Kasargod from the compartment itself.  However the respondent travelled in train No.2685 which is a superfast train with an Express train ticket and the TTE rightly done his duty by issuing penalty charges.  It is also unbelievable when a person walking nearby a compartment the TTE forcefully asking him to enter the compartment saying that he is a thief. We                                  find no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party/the appellant herein and the District Forum with prejudiced view find fault with the TTE for penalizing the respondent.  Hence we are of the considered view that the complaint filed against the appellants by the respondent is made out of a venture for penalizing.

          In the result, appeal allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

 A. RADHA              :               MEMBER

 

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                   DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.165/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 18/11/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.