Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievance that he had purchased 2 return tickets from the Opposite party on 06.10.06 to travel to Bangalore from Mysore with his wife by express train by paying express fare. Later he travelled to Bangalore on the same day by Chamundi Express train. That on completion of his work at Bangalore, he with his wife boarded Tippu express train having already purchased return ticket by paying express fare at Mysore. When they approached Mandya, the personnel of the Opposite party – the Checking Inspectors checked their tickets, but they refused to accept those tickets on the ground that they are not valid tickets and told him that they will be treated as ticket less passengers and forced him to pay fine of Rs.500/- and the difference amount of Rs.20/-. The Opposite party should have only collected difference of ticket charges and the reservation charges as in the norms of Railway, but the personnel of the Opposite party did not yield to it. Then he approached the Commercial Manager was of no use. Thus imposition of fine of Rs.500/- despite express train ticket amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and therefore has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to return the fine amount of Rs.500/- and grant to such a relief.<br /> 2. The Opposite party has filed the version admitting that the complainant and his wife were travelers purchased ticket for traveling the express train, but Mysore-Bangalore Tippu was converted into Super fast express and re-numbered w.e.f. 01.07.2006 and those who intended to travel in the said train have to purchase Super fast ticket along with fare and traveling without Super fast charges will be treated as “Irregular travellers” and excess fare (penalty will be collected). The complainant who wanted to travel in Super fast train and should have purchased a ticket inclusive of Super fast supplementary charges. The complainant who had not purchased additional Super fast surcharge ticket was not entitled to travel in the Super fast train. Therefore, the inspecting personal of the Opposite party collected the additional fare and the penalty in accordance with law, therefore denying all other allegations has contended that the complaint is not maintainable and to dismiss the same.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry, the complainant and the Opposite party have filed their affidavits reiterating the contentions they have raised in their respective complaint and the version. Both parties have produced certain circulars issued by the Opposite party from time to time.<br /> 4. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that he was entitled to travel in Tippu Super fast express train with the express train ticket he had purchased and that the act of the men of Opposite parties in collecting penalty amounts to Unfair Trade Practice?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?<br /> 3. What order?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 and 2 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Points no. 1 & 2:- The fact that the complainant had purchased 2 return ticket for returning from Bangalore to Mysore on 06.10.2006 is not in dispute. Similarly, the complainant who had purchased return ticket by paying express fare for returning from Bangalore to Mysore instead of traveling in ordinary express train admittedly travelled in train No.2614, which is called as Tippu express, on the same ticket he possessed and he was caught with his wife and made to pay the difference of ticket charges with penalty of Rs.250/- each is also not in controversy. It is the contention of the complainant that he was entitled to travel with an express ticket in any express train. Therefore, he with his wife boarded Tippu express train and therefore the Opposite party ought not to have collected any penalty from them.<br /> 8. Whereas the Opposite party has contended that the ticket, the complainant had purchased would entitle the complainant to travel in the express train. But, the Tippu train has been converted into Super fast express and fairs are also revised in the Super fast express train w.e.f. 01.07.2006 and the complainant who had purchased ticket for traveling in the normal express train and if had intended to travel in Tuppu super fast express, he should have in the counter at the station before boarding the train paid the prescribed Super fast express charges and collected additional ticket. But, by not doing so travelled in the Super fast train. Therefore the checking official checked the complainant and his wife and treated them as irregular passengers, which is equivalent to ticket less passengers and therefore contended that recovery of penalty is in accordance with law. <br /> 9. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that ticket checking manual of Southern Railway and the circular issued by the Opposite party from time to time provide for only collection of Super fast charges + penalty of Rs.50 per ticket only and whereas the Opposite party has collected penalty of Rs.250/- each from the complainant and his wife and therefore that amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and thus has submitted for the relief as prayed for in the complaint.<br /> 10. The fact that Tippu express bearing No.6205/6206 has been converted into Super fast express and re-numbered as 2613/2614 and the rates for travel in that train have been increased w.e.f. 01.07.2006 is not disputed by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant who had purchased ticket for traveling in the ordinary express on 06.10.2006 could not have travelled in Tippu Super fast express train and if he had intended to travel in that train, he ought to have purchased the ticket inclusive of Super fast supplementary charges. But, without doing so has travelled in the Super fast express with the charges paid for traveling in ordinary express.<br /> 11. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant invited our attention to a literature of the Opposite party to item No.12 of the list of irregular travel cases and penalties and submitted that a passenger traveling by Super fast train without ticket is only liable to pay Super fast charge + penalty of Rs.50/- and therefore that the Opposite party has collected excess penalty.<br /> 12. The learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party argued that literature of the Opposite party relied on by the counsel for the complainant is an old one and he invited our attention to the amendment brought to the Railways Act section 137 (3) and 138 (3) raising the minimum penalty from Rs.50/- to Rs.250/- and notification to that effect issued on 31.12.2003. He also invited our attention to Gazette notification dated 30.12.2003 under which wherein an amendment was brought to the Railways Act by bringing an amendment to sub-section of section 137 of the Act by substituting the word Rs.250/- to the word Rs.50/-. Based on this amendment, the Railways shown to had issued a circular on 30.06.2004 as relied on by the counsel for the Opposite party. Further, the learned counsel for the Opposite party also invited our attention to commercial circular No.18 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways on 07.06.2004, wherein it reads that after bringing an amendment to section 137 and 138 of the Railways Act 1989, minimum penalty of Rs.50/-, which was in existence has been enhanced to Rs.250/- to the ticket less travelers and publication was made to the knowledge of the general public. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant replied that circular relied on by the counsel for the Opposite party only applies to ticket less travelers and not to the irregular travelers like the complainant and his wife and therefore those circulars have no application to the facts of this case. The counsel representing the Opposite party has also invited our attention to the commercial circular No.2104 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways on 30.06.2004 wherein amendment to 137 and 138 of the Railways Act was brought by amending the wording “ticket less travelers” by supplementing the word irregular travelers also. Therefore, the word irregular traveler also came to be added with the word ticket less traveler by supplementing that wherever that word ticket less traveler existence to read also irregular travelers. The circular no.18 and the Gazette notification dated 30.12.2003 under which penalty was increased to Rs.250/- not only applies to ticket less travelers, but also to the irregular travelers like complainant and his wife. Therefore, we find no substance in the contention of the complainant and his counsel and further hold that the complainant has failed to prove Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite party or deficiency in service and the complaint is devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. With the result, we answer point no.1 and 2 in the negative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br />