D.O.F. 23.04.2011
D.O.O.22.11.2011
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 22nd day of December 2011.
C.C.No.133/2011
Artist Sasi,
Sasikala Arts,
Near Haridas Colony,
Thavakkara, Kannur 670 002. Complainant
1. Station Master,
Kannur Railway Station,
Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv.VinodRaj)
2. Sheji,
Booking Clerk,
Kannur Railway station,
Kannur. Opposite Parties
(Rep. by Adv.K.VinodRaj)
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 parties to pay an amount of `25,000 as compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant went to Kannur Railway station ticket counter at 10.30 morning on 9.3.2011 in order to take ticket from Kannur to Mahe and on his turn from the queue he offered change of `5 with different denominations of coins `2 +`2+50 ps. + 25 ps to the lady clerk for getting the ticket. Immediately when the coin was tendered the second opposite party pushed the coins away and told that these coins are not valid and she would not accept the same. When it was questioned she told no body takes these coins when they return. When the complainant said, that was none of his concern, the lady uttered that she wouldn’t accept it. When complainant told her that he has offered valid coin she jumped and stood telling to go away. complainant understanding that the protest was due to deal with 25 paisa coin he told her not to be angry why because there is facility for exchange from the bank till 29th June. Then she became panic with utterance and when again asked for ticket her answer was negative. Then he complained to station manager since it was train time and he advised to take ticket and go for the time being promising that he would take necessary action after the enquiry on the question. Thus the complainant returned back to counter and obtained ticket by giving hundred rupees note. He used to give the same coins for taking ticket for return journey from Mahe to Kannur. When he enquired the mater with the Assistant Station Manger, Kannur he did not give a satisfactory answer. Then he met the station Master in duty and lodged complaint in the complaint book. When he asked the name of the lady to him he said he do not know her name. He then asked to the station master where is go to get her name if he did not know the name of her, the only person responsible for the entire four counters in Kannur Railway station on 9.3.2011 morning 10.30. He also asked whether it would be available if gone to Palalakkad? At last when he warned was told that it was better to give the name without helping the robbers he gave her name “Shiji’. Since he was insulted and became shameful before the public he is entitled for compensation and hence this complaint.
Pursuant to the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version jointly denying the main allegations of the complainant. The brief facts of the version are as follows: When the complainant tendered coins of `2 + `2 + 50 paisa + 25 paisa + 25 paisa the second opposite party pushed the coins away and refused to accept it saying that it is not a valid tender are all false. The complainant came to the counter on 9.3.2011 with a handful of 25 paisa coins and demanded a ticket to Mahe for Mangalore Coimbatore Passenger train. At that time there was heavy rush in the counter. 2nd opposite party very politely told to the complainant that there was no time to count the coins and moreover nobody was accepting 25 paisa coins back as change and the same could only be exchanged through banks up to 30.6.2011. There were also more passengers to be cleared. At that time the complainant abused the 2nd opposite party and threw a hundred rupees Note and demanded the ticket to Mahe. Opposite party then returned the 25 paisa coins and balance along with the ticket. The rightful service to the passenger for purchase of the ticket had not been denied. Complainant went to the station manger and asked whether those coins could be accepted or not. SMT tried to contact the booking, but the phone was engaged. Station Manager announced him that he would enquire the matter. Thereafter complainant again made enquiry whether any action had been initiated against 2nd opposite party or not. SMR answered the complainant informing the difficulty of counting of so many coins in the peak hours and problem of circulation etc. But dissatisfied with the explanation complainant demanded for complaint and thus he was directed to Senior Manager, complainant record his complaint in the complaint book. He asked the name of the booking clerk which as also given. The 2nd opposite party belongs to Palakkad and not Travancore side as alleged by complainant. So there is no question of S.M saying that the 2nd opposite party belongs to Travancore. The complainant claimed relief without any basis. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Railway.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite
Parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as
prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1, DW1,DW2 and Exts.A1 to A7, Ext.B1 and B2.
Issue Nos.1 to 3
Complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit and marked Exts.A1to A7 on his side. He filed affidavit in tune with his pleadings. The case of the complainant is that he has offered coins of different denominations for `5 in order to get ticket from Kannur to Mahe. The booking clerk in the ticket counter Kannur Railway station refused to accept the coins and to issue ticket, whereas opposite party contended that when the complainant came with a hand full of 25 paisa coins she has politely told to complainant the difficulty of counting the same while intend to clear more passengers since there was heavy rush and of he exchange problems. At that time the complainant abused 2nd opposite party and thrown a hundred rupees note on her face and demanded for ticket. She then issued ticket and returned the coins and balance amount.
Ext.A1 dated 9.3.2011 is the copy of the complaint. Ext.A2 dated 22.8.2011 is the reply sent by Divisional Railway Manger. A3 is tickets and A4 Sudinam daily. A5 and 6 are two other dailies Mathrubhoomi and Manorama and Ext.A7 is net down copy (RBI/2010-11/482) Ext.B1 and B2 are documents marked on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 dated 10.3.11 the letter to DCM Southern Railway by the 2nd opposite party and Ext.B3 the letter of 1st opposite party to DCM are documents marked on the side of opposite party.
The complainant came to ticket counter for the ticket and tendered coins. Complainant says that it is with coins of different denominations whereas, opposite party says that complainant tendered full 25 paisa for five rupees ticket from Kannur to Mahe. Whether it is full of 25 paisa coins or coins of different denominations it can be very well assumed that complainant tendered coins of lower denominations. Complainant has also case that the coins tendered were pushed away. Anyhow or other complainant received ticket from the same counter giving hundred rupees note. It is understandable that the Kannur Railway station counter in general is a busy counter, since it is situated in a district head quarter. Complainant tendered these coins at about right time of train. The facts reveals that complainant after getting the ticket run and caught the train since the train was about to leave. Naturally the passengers on the queue also will be very much eager to get the ticket as fast as possible. Opposite party has the case that the incident under discussion had been taken place when there was heavy rush in the counter. It is quite natural under such a situation there will be a sort of displeasure when number of coins is placed to the counter for issuing a ticket. Complainant cross examined 2nd opposite party elaborately. 2nd opposite party deposed in cross examination that “Sn¡äv sImSp-¡nà F¶p Rm³ ]\-ªn-«n-Ã.”. Complainant in his chief affidavit stated that “Rm³ Sn¡äv Xcm³ km[n-¡p-I-bnsà F¶p tNmZn-¨-t¸mÄ ‘CÃm’ CXp Rm\mWv ]d-bp-¶Xp F¶m-bn-cp¶p adp-]Sn”. Except this interested testimony of complainant there is nothing to prove this statement. The case of the opposite party is that she had politely told the complainant the situation. Anyhow, the complainant obtained ticket from the same counter and received back the coins tendered earlier together with the balance amount. But this time complainant whether thrown or otherwise gives hundred rupees note for five rupees ticket. The nature of tendering money makes an impression that there was an attempt on the part of complainant to make the situation a little bit confusion. Deficiency of service cannot be measured mechanically ignoring the ground reality of common life. The very spirit of the consumer protection Act does not permit to hit the peaceful co-existence of society, without which the smooth functioning of common life becomes impossible. An attention on not being spoiled the provisions of Act also deserves importance. It is pertinent to note the real principle behind the legal maxim “ Jus constitui oporte in his quae it plurimum accidunt non quae ex inopinato”. which means Law ought to be made with a view to those cases which happen most frequently and not to those which are of accidental occurrence”.
Considering the existence of peculiar situation out of this heavy rush in the counter and the practical problem that had been existed in connection with the transaction of 25 paisa coin as a result of announcement of withdrawal from circulation, we don’t find deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in the event under discussion in the light of the fact that the very purpose of obtaining ticket had been fulfilled. If the journey of the complainant interrupted in one way or other and as a result of which any material less had been sustained in connection with the same event the entire things would have been different. Hence we feel that a deep further more analysis is not required in this matter since it is merely an accidental occurrence. Thus issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1.Copy of the complaint dt.9.3.11 submitted before OP1.
A2. Reply
A3. Tickets
A4 to A6. News paper of Sudinam, Manora and Mathrubhoomi
A7.Net down copy of RB/2010-11/482)
Exhibits for the opposite parties:
B1.Copy of the explanation given by OP to Sr.DCM, Palghat Jn.
B2. Reply letter dt.10.6.11
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite parties
DW1.Sheji.K.S
DW2.P.Rajan
/ forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
