Date of filing : 29-12-2014
Date of order : 22-02-2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KA S ARAGOD
CC.280/2014
Dated this, the 22nd day of February 2016
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Muhammed Irfan Ali.M.K, : Complainant
S/o. Late A.K.Muhammed, B usiness,
R/at Thabsheera Manzil, Muttathody.Po,
Vidyangar, Kasaragod. 671123.
(Adv.Shajid Kammadam, Kasaragod.)
- Southern Railway, Park town Chennai, Tamil Nadu : Opposite parties
600 003 Rep. by the General Manager.
- Southern Railway, Palakkad Division, Olavankkode,
Kerala 678 002.Rep. by the Divisional Manager.
O R D E R
SMT.SH.BA.M.SMAUEL, MEMBER
The brief case of the complainant is that he is a business man and scheduled to attend a meeting to be held on 15-11-2014 at Calicut he has decided to by rail and he purchased a ticket on 15-11-2014 through unreserved tickets system of Kasaragod Railway station. On boarding he approached the TTE of AC chair car (C2) of Parasuram Express 16649 and requested to upgrading the same to AC chair car. The concerned TTE has sanctioned the same on payment of Rs.260/- and issued a receipt for the same. After attending the meeting the complainant has approached the UTS of Calicut railway station and purchased ticket from Calicut to Kasaragod. On boarding the train the complainant has approached the concerned TTE of AC chair car of Parasuram Express No.16650 and requested for upgrading the ticket. In turn upgradation was sanctioned on payment of Rs.245/- and issued a receipt for the same. It is revealed that the TTE of AC chair car (C2) of Parasuram Express 16649 has collected excess charge in violation of rules. At that point the complainant had deprived peace of mind and he has to spent time in worry. Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite parties filed version and admitted the issuance of ticket. But they contended that there is no authenticate record to show that the ticket and the cash receipt produced along with the above said complaint was belonged to the complainant and there is no proof that the complainant had travel on the said date i.e. 15-11-2014. In the version they admitted that the TTE is Mr.R.Sathyavijayan of train No.16649 had erred in calculating the difference in fare for AC chair car due to in advertent error from his side and opposite parties further deeply regretted for the inconvenience caused to the complainant on account of collecting excess fare by mistake. And moreover both the collection of excess fare was done by issuing receipts and the amount remitted to the railway and hence there is no suppression of facts by the concerned railway officials. It is further submitted that the opposite parties are having discretionary power and they are prepared to refund the excess amount to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint and hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant represented that he has no oral evidence to adduce but produced some documents on his side before the Forum and marked the same as Exts A1 to A6 series. The opposite party has neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documents. The Forum carefully perused the documents and analyzed the complaint and version before us.
4. The case of the complainant that he is the businessman and scheduled to attend a meeting to be held on 15-11-2014 at Calicut and he has decided to go by train and purchased unreserved ticket from Kasaragod to Calicut. On boarding he approached the TTE of AC Chair car (C2) of Parasuram Express/16649 and requested for upgrading the same. The TTE sanctioned the same all payment of Rs.260/- and issued a receipt for the same. After attending meeting the complainant boarded Parasuram Express 16650 with an unreserved ticket from Calicut to Kasaragod and approached the TTE for upgrading the same. In turn upgradation was one on payment of Rs.245/- and issued receipt for the same. It was revealed that the TTE of AC chair car of Parasuram Express 16649 was collected excess charges violation of fare rules at that point the complainant has deprived of peace of mind and had to spent time in worry. Hence he approached the Forum.
5. The opposite parties filed version by admitting that the TTE of Parasuram Express 16649 had committed an error in calculating the difference in fare for AC chair car due to an in advertent error and not done intention again. And they further regretted for the inconvenience caused to the complainant on account of collecting excess fare by mistake. Moreover the entire money in both direction collected from the passengers on issuing receipt and remitted the amount to railway and hence there is no suppression of facts by the concerned railway official and they expressed their readiness to refund the excess amount to the complainant. By filing such a version itself clearly prove the case of the complainant Forum is surprised to see that with regard to the fixation of the tariff what is the criteria of the opposite party is being followed. As per the Right to Information Act it was revealed that it is mandate on the part of the opposite parties that there must be a pro active disclosure with regard to the fare to the passengers. The present situation is in such a way that the passengers are not getting any opportunities to cross check the calculation arrived by the concerned authorities. In this case apparently there is no suppression of excess fare collected from the side of the opposite parties staff since both the TTEs issued receipt for the amount collected by them . Therefore in order to avoid a confusion or lack of transparency must be avoided by the railway is absolutely necessary with regard to the fixation of tariff. The denial of the opportunity to the passengers with regard to the criteria for the fixation of tariff amounts to deficiency in service from the side of the railway. Exts. A1 to A6 series marked on the side of the complainant is a clear proof of the allegation in the complaint since all the Exhibits discloses difference in fare calculated by each staff by taking fare according to their calculation. It is a not a negligible thing at all. Therefore the tariff must be published. It is advised that the public authority under Section 4 Clause 1 of the Right Information Act may display information about fare board should be installed at the railway station. So that the opposite parties have obligation to disclose the fare this direction was given by the Information commissioner, in the case of Mr. Jamal Ahammed V Ministry of Railway .
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to give Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation and with a cost of Rs.2000/-. It is further directed that the opposite parties must publish the tariff at all respective railway station as per Section 4 clause 1 of Right to Information Act. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy or order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.series tickets.
A2 series tickets.
A3 Series tickets.
A4 Series tickets
A5 Series tickets
A6 Series Tickets.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
PJ/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
