BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
C.C. No. 445/2014 Filed on 15.11.2014
ORDER DATED: 19.08.2016
Complainant:
P.A. Ahamed, S/o Abdul Khader Labba, Poikayil, Ambalathumukku, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Narayan. R)
Opposite parties:
- The General Manager, Southern Railway, 1st Floor, NGO Building, Park Town, Chennai-600 003, Tamil Nadu.
- The Divisional Railway Manager, Trivandrum Division, Railway Divisional Office, Divisional Office Building, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014.
(By Adv. S. Renganathan for 2nd O.P)
- Sarish P. Sankar, Chief Ticket Inspector, Southern Railway, Ernakulam.
This case having been heard on 15.07.2016, the Forum on 19.08.2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. P. SUDHIR: PRESIDENT
The gist of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is a frequent traveler in the Janashathabdi Express of the Indian Railway from Trivandrum to Ernakulam and back. On 15.10.2014, the complainant had booked an A/c Chair car to travel from Trivandrum to Ernakulam through tatkal scheme. Accordingly ticket having PNR No. 4721099214 was issued for journey dated 15.10.2014 from Trivandrum to Ernakulam in Train No. 12076-Janashatabdi Express. While the complainant was undertaking the journey, the 3rd opposite party approached for verification of ticket and the complainant handed over the duplicate of the laminated driving licence card together with the ticket to him. After keeping the ticket as well as the ID for about ten minutes- the 3rd opposite party informed the complainant that he has to take a fresh ticket and that the ID is not original. The complainant informed the 3rd opposite party that what he handed over not a copy but a duplicate issued by the Motor Vehicles Department having the original seal and signature of the issuing authority. The complainant being a lawyer himself and from his legal experience also informed the 3rd opposite party that the duplicate is as good as the original as long as it bears the signature and seal of the issuing authority. When the complainant spoke in English, the 3rd opposite party replied that he doesn’t know English and began to raise his voice and began to insult and humiliate the complainant. There were a lot of passengers in the compartment including Sri. Hareendran Nair, member, Kerala Public Service Commission, Sri. C.P Narayanan, Hon’ble member of Rajya Sabha and a personal acquaintance of the complainant and many others. The complainant was insulted and humiliated in their presence. Even though Sri. C.P. Narayanan and two railway police constables who were in the same compartment-namely Sri. Biju and Sri. Rejikunj also informed the 3rd opposite party about the legal validity of the licence card and how it is sufficient for proving the identity; he was in no mood to listen to them and was in a belligerent mood. In order to avoid an untoward incident, the complainant was forced to pay Rs. 680/-. The 3rd opposite party wrote in the ticket “not produced original ID proof” and also issued a receipt for acceptance of Rs. 680/-. The act of the 3rd opposite party in demanding money from the complainant is nothing but unfair trade practice as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The law and rules laid down regarding the legal validity of the driving licence card as in the Motor Vehicles Act and its use as an ID proof has been deliberately given a goby. Though the complainant and others impressed upon the 3rd opposite party the legal position regarding the same-he deliberately turned a deaf ear to the same and proceeded to insult and humiliate the complainant. He was not in a mood to listen or understand the difference between a duplicate and a copy. That is nothing but deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party as a government employee is duty bound to act in a courteous manner to the passengers and not to insult or belittle them. His action was nothing but atrocious, arrogant and discourteous to say the least. The complainant was very much hurt and injured by the behavior of the 3rd opposite party. Even though no quantum of money will compensate the complainant’s injured feelings, as a mark of protecting his honour, as a senior citizen, as a lawyer and as a consumer of the Railways, the complainant demands a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with the refund of Rs. 680/-. The 3rd opposite party being an employee of the 1st and 2nd opposite party they too are equally jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant and complainant approached this Forum for redressal.
Notice sent to opposite parties. Opposite parties accepted notice and appeared and contested the case. As per the version of opposite parties, their contention is that the complainant is not a consumer of these opposite parties as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is to be noted that the complainant had no valid ticket to travel by Train No. 12076 on 15.10.2015 and hence the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant had taken a tatkal ticket for his journey on 15.10.2015 by Train No. 12076 and tatkal ticket is issued with certain conditions. The foremost among those conditions is that while issuing a tatkal ticket, the passenger has to produce any prescribed identity card of his choice and its number will be incorporated in the ticket and during the journey, the passenger has to produce the same identity card in original along with the ticket on demand by the ticket checking staff. The validity of the tatkal ticket is constituted by the original identity card and the printed ticket together. If the passenger fails to produce the original identity card, the validity of the ticket is nullified and the passenger should be penalized for not having a valid travel authority as per extant rule. The validity of the tatkal ticket is constituted by the printed ticket along with the original prescribed identity proof. This fact has been printed in the tatkal ticket itself and made known to the customers through the Southern Railway time table published from time to time. This complainant did not possess any original identity proof nor produced the same when the 3rd opposite party has requested him to produce the same, in the train. The 3rd opposite party had only performed his duty as the rule had dictated. The complainant had refused to produce any original ID proof and produced a Photostat copy of his duplicate driving licence. As this was not acceptable, as per the rule, the 3rd opposite party had politely asked him to pay the penalty as the rule prescribed and allotted the same seat he had been occupying. Being a legally educated person and a seasoned passenger, the complainant cannot claim ignorance of these facts and it is on this condition that his ticket was issued and was accepted by the complainant. As such the complaint is barred by principle of estoppels. The passenger has availed the offered services, provided by Railways with its conditions attached to it. The complainant had failed to produce the original identity proof, with which he had taken the tatkal ticket. He had produced to the 3rd opposite party, a Photostat copy of the duplicate driving licence issued to him. It may be noted that if the complainant did not have the original identity card with him, he could have given the number of any other prescribed identity proof like PAN card, electoral card, Adhar card etc. at the time of booking of the ticket and produce the original identity card of the same, at the time of journey. This cannot be viewed as a deficiency on the part of these opposite parties but is a negligence on the part of the complainant. As such any alleged difficulty caused to him, if at all anything is there, but not admitted by these opposite parties, are only self made and not a resultant of any actions of the opposite parties. Opposite parties are duty bound to act by rules framed by the Parliament and other administrative laws, in force, and hence this could not be termed as deficiency by any means. The allegation that the complainant had produced a duplicate, laminated card is denied. The complainant had produced only a Photostat copy of the duplicate, which is not equivalent to the original identity card. The complainant has to state and prove why he had paid the penalty and fare if he was sure about the legal validity of the document he was having, especially when there were two police constables available in the coach and interfered in the matter, as stated by himself. The 3rd opposite party was only performing his duty and the opposite party was simply obstructing the duty of a government employee who was bound by rules to perform his duty. On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the 2nd opposite party had intimated the complainant over phone on 07.11.2014 and in writing twice, to produce his ticket for considering the feasibility of a refund, considering this as a special case. However the complainant had willfully refused to send his original ticket to the 2nd opposite party’s office with a view to gain illegal gratification. The letter addressed to the complainant vide this office letter No. V/C 508/2508/TVC/13-14 dated 18.12.2014 is handed over to the associate and advocate in the office of the complainant, on 23.12.2014, at the complainant’s office, which was acknowledged by him, in the absence of the complainant. A copy of the reminder dated 02.01.2015 is also sent to the complainant by post. The 3rd opposite party had recorded the names of two police constables in the receipt issued to the complainant is a solid proof that he was convinced about the lack of validity of the Photostat copy of the identity proof, the complainant had produced to him. From this it is evident that the complainant had failed to produce the original identity proof and the 3rd opposite party had to call for the assistance of police personnel. At the end portion, these statements underline that there were no verbal battle or heated exchange of words in between them. Opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as compensation, cost or refund to the complainant as there are no refund on confirmed tatkal tickets. Even then, considering this as a special case, the 2nd opposite party had contacted the complainant and requested for submission of his ticket for examining the feasibility of a refund, which was turned down by the complainant.
Complainant filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4 marked. Complainant not cross examined by opposite parties. Opposite parties filed chief examination affidavit and Exts. D1 to D5 marked.
Issues:
- Whether the original duplicate licence is equivalent to original licence for the purpose of ID proof?
- Whether the complainant has shown the printed original I.D proof or Photostat copy of the ID proof?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
Issue (i):- In this case one of the issues is that whether signed and sealed printed duplicate driving licence can be treated as equivalent to signed and sealed printed original driving licence as ID proof. No doubt that when the original is lost, he can approach the same authority for issuance of duplicate of that document with an undertaking that the original is lost and he has not misused the same and he shall surrender before the authority when the original is recovered. The authority will issue a duplicate of original document with sign and seal after verifying the records in their custody and mentioned it as ‘duplicate’. So printed duplicate driving licence can be used as original driving licence and ID proof before any authority.
Issues (ii) to (iv):- The crux of the case lie on the question that whether the complainant has shown the printed duplicate driving licence as ID proof or photocopy of the duplicate driving licence. Complainant is not a layman. He is a lawyer of having 40 years practice and well versant with the law of the country. In Ext. P1 produced by the complainant, the 3rd opposite party has written that ‘not produced the printed original I.D proof’ and it is also mentioned in Ext. P1 that “TICKET VALID ONLY WITH PRINTED ORIG ID PROOF. NO REFUND ON CNFD TATKAL TKT’. In the complaint it is mentioned as ‘not produced original ID proof’. That was not the case of the opposite parties from the version itself. Opposite parties’ case is that their Rules demand for printed original I.D proof and not original ID proof as mentioned in the complaint. This being the case complainant being the master of the complaint is burdened to prove that he has shown the printed original ID proof and not the Photostat copy of the duplicate ID proof. Complainant has not produced the original of Ext.P1 before this Forum, only Photostat copy of the same is produced along with complaint with an undertaking to produce the same at the time of cross. Both parties submitted that they do not want to cross examine, but only to mark documents. Even though complainant produced the original duplicate driving licence to show that he has possessed the original duplicate driving licence that will not improve the case. The question is whether complainant shown the original duplicate driving licence before the 3rd opposite party at the time of inspection by 3rd opposite party. Complainant’s case is that he was insulted and humiliated among a lot of passengers in the compartment including Sri. Hareendran Nair, member, Kerala Public Service Commission, Sri. C.P Narayanan, Hon’ble member of Rajya Sabha and a personal acquaintance of the complainant and many others. Moreover in the complaint it is mentioned that Sri. C.P. Narayanan and two railway police constables namely Sri. Biju and Sri. Rejikunj were in the same compartment. What prevented the complainant from examining any of the parties or his acquaintance to prove his case. The statements of Sri. Biju and Sri. Rejikunj was produced by opposite parties and marked as Exts. D3 and D4. The legal veracity of such statement is still a question. In Ext. P3 it is also mentioned that the reason for charge “failed to produce the printed original”. Ext. P3 bears the signature of the complainant admitting the same. He has not made any protest or demand to endorse that “original duplicate driving licence produced by him”. So the complainant miserably failed to prove that he has produced any one of the eight ID proof in original mentioned in Annexure VI produced along with version. This forum is not belittling the fame of a lawyer but at the same time a rule abiding Government servant cannot be troubled. Regarding the deficiency of service of opposite parties, complainant availed the service of Railway for his travel from Trivandrum to Ernakulam on 15.10.2014 by taking tatkal sewa journey cum reservation ticket by paying Rs. 565/- and non-compliance of the terms made the ticket invalid. That is the duty of the Railway servants on duty to verify the same and charged Rs. 420/- and excess fare Rs. 260/-, total Rs. 680/- as per rules of Railway. Complainant was provided with the same seat and in the same train. No loss is suffered by the complainant in this regard. Moreover when Ext. P4 sent to opposite parties 1 to 3, though the name of 3rd opposite party is mistaken, 1st and 2nd opposite parties have made earnest efforts to enquire the matter by conveying message over complainant’s mobile phone by Exts. D1 and D2 for which complainant not co-operated. So opposite parties 1 & 2 also had done their service as per rules and as a special case. So we are of the opinion that complainant, apart from issue (i), failed to prove his case regarding the production of printed duplicate ID and deficiency of service and complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. Hence issue Nos. (ii), (iii) & (iv) found against and we are constrained to dismiss the complaint without cost.
In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.
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 19th day of August 2016.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Jb
C.C. No. 445/2014
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Reservation ticket of Trivandrum to Ernakulam dated 15.10.2014
P2 - Copy of driving licence of complainant.
P3 - Excess fare ticket dated 15.10.2014
P4 - Acknowledgement card, advocate notice and postal receipts
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
D1 - Copy of letter from O.P to complainant dated 18.12.2014.
D2 - Copy of reminder letter from OP to complainant dated 02.01.2015
D3 - Statement of Sri. Biju. S, CPO dated 11.02.2015
D4 - Statement of Reji kunju dated 11.02.2015
D5 - Letter to Chief Ticket Inspector from Sarish P. Sankar
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
