D.O.F. 20.04.2010
D.O.O. 27.06.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011
C.C.No.109/2010
K. Karunakaran,
S/o. E. Krishnan Nambiar, : Complainant
Assistant Excise Commissioner,
Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv. K.K. Balaram)
1. Station Manager,
Kannur Railway Station,
Kannur. : Opposite parties
2. Divisional Manager,
Southern Railway,
Palakkad.
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 751 as balance train ticket and ` 50,000 as compensation.
The case set up by the complainant in brief is as follows : He took a tatkal ticket paying ` 200 as extra amount over and above the normal A/c three tire fare of ` 673. The ticket issued was waitlist ticket. It was told by the staff of opposite parties that the ticket will be confirmed before the departure of the train. On the day of journey when enquired just before the arrival of the train his status was waitlist No.3 only. When the train arrived at Kasaragod railway station the T.T.E. in charge of A/c three tire coach did not allow the complainant to travel in the A/c three tire coach since he had only waiting list ticket. He did not suggest any other way. As he was insulted and in a helpless position he was constrained to continue his journey in the second class from Kannur Railway Station onwards. Apart from being insulted he was also suffered health problems since he was a patient of dust allergy problems, the tiresome journey in the overcrowded compartment made him upset by which he could not even participate actively in the deliberations in the conference next day, the very purpose for which he compelled to come. The practice of Indian Railway in collecting an additional fee for tatkal facility and issuing waitlist tickets without confirming the availability of seats is deceptive practice. The opposite party is liable to answer for the for the trouble that he was suffered. The complainant approached the T.T.E in the train to refund the fare but the T.T.E. refused to cancel and refund the cost of ticket. Hence this complaint.
In response to the notice sent by Forum opposite parties entered appearance and filed version as follows : the purchase of waitlist unreserved tickets having waitlist No.5 by the complainant is true. Since he was having only waitlist ticket he was constrained to travel in second class general compartment. The allegation of the complainant with respect to the reservation and assurance of staff, his sufferings humiliation etc are false. If the status of the ticket is waitinglist, complainant passenger should have been cancelled the ticket from the starting station and purchase a second class ticket. On the other hand passenger cannot avail the facility he can collect a lower class certificate from the concerned T.T.E. and collect difference of lower class certificate from the concerned T.T.E. and collect difference of fare and also the difference of tatkal charges if any from Thiruvananthapuram station as per rules. T.T.E. cannot arrange any reason. There is no unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. Complainant did not suffer any dimension. It is false to say that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint?
(3) Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the chief affidavit filed by complainant and opposite party and Ext.A1 marked on the side of complainant.
Issues 1 to 3 :
Admittedly the complainant was holder of tatkal ticket which was only a waitlist ticket. Complainant paid ` 200 as extra amount over and above the normal A/c tire fare of 673. Even at the time of arrival of the train his status was only waiting list No.3.
The case of the complainant is that since his ticket was a waiting list one T.T.E. did not allow him to travel in the AC 3-tier coach. He became helpless and insulted and finally constrained to continue his journey in the second class from Kannur station onwards. The tiresome journey made him upset and he could not actively engage in the activities for which the journey had been intended to.
It can be seen that ticket under ‘Tatkal’ is a special arrangement by the Railway for the passengers those who required urgent journey. The ticket is issued receiving extra amount. When an extra amount is charged it is expected to have certain extra facilities. Complainant did not get any advantage though he has taken Tatkal ticket. The complainant was denied to continue the journey in A/c three tier and he was compelled to go by second class.
Ext.A1 proves that complainant has taken Tatkal Ticket from Kasaragod to Trivandrum for Malabar Express. Complainant was denied to travel in the A/c three tier coach as he was having only wait listed ticket. Complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit that the complainant approached the T.T.E. to refund the fare since he was not provided to him in AC three tier. But the T.T.E. refused to cancel and refused the cost of the ticket. What opposite party submitted in the version is that if the status of the ticket is in waiting list the passenger can very well cancel the ticket at the starting station and purchase a second class ticket. Opposite party also stated that on the other hand if the passenger cannot avail the facility he can collect a lower class certificate from the concerned T.T.E. and collect the difference of fare and also the difference of tatkal charges if any from Trivandrum station. It is also stated that this being the position T.T.E. cannot arrange any refund from the train as alleged in the complaint.
It is very important to note the attitude of the T.T.E. T.T.E. did not even tried to convince the complainant the actual state of affair. As per rules regarding refund on tatkal ticket if the party travels in lower class, the passenger will be given refund of difference of fare and also difference of tatkal charges if any. When complainant approached the T.T.E. atleast he has the obligation morally to advise him that the eligible amount can be refunded in such a way as explained above. Instead of helping the passenger the attitude of the T.T.E. had been in effect negative. When the complainant approached the T.T.E he could very well issued a lower class certificate. Opposite party has no case that the passenger did not approach him for refund. What he has done when complainant/passenger approached him is not explained by opposite party. The T.T.E. has the obligation to give the necessary information to the passenger. Herein the complainant is a well educated person capable of understanding the position in case if it has been explained or advised. The facts available shows that no attempt has been made to guide or convince the passenger the practical solution including obtaining of lower class certificate as per the rules by the concerned T.T.E.
In a welfare state like ours the democratic way of life inculcated a moral obligation upon the responsible officials to pacify persons under trouble when approach them for relief. If the T.T.E. had taken a friendly attitude to the complainant there would not have any issue supposed to arise out of this incident. The attitude of T.T.E. herein certainly resulted in an embarrassed situation to make the passenger totally in trouble instead of atleast help him to obtain lower class certificate. It is not the ignorance of the complainant/passenger but the negative attitude of the bureaucratic culture on the part of opposite party that resulted in preventing from discharging the expected ratio of obligation. This can only be treated as part dereliction of duty that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
In the light of the above discussion we are of opinion that the opposite party is liable to refund the difference of fare and also the difference of tatkal charges if any. Complainant is also entitled for an amount of ` 1,000 as cost. However we are not awarding compensation considering the peculiarity of experiment of the set up of tatkal intend to help the passengers in an urgent situation, though fully not successful. Thus the issues 1 to 3 is partly in favour of the complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund the complainant the difference of fare and also the difference of tatkal charges if any together with a sum of ` 1,000 as cost of this litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Railway ticket
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
