Date of filing : 14-10-2010
Date of order : 08 -06-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 215/2010
Dated this, the 8th day of June 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Venu.K,
S/o. Late Kunhappu, } Complainant
Kannamkai House, Cheruvathur,
Kasaragod District.
(Adv. C. Shukkur, Hosdurg)
1. Station Master, } Opposite parties
Railway Station, Nileshwaram.Po.
2. General Manager,
Southern Railway, Palakkad Division,
Olavakkode.Po. Palakkad.
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Bereft of unnecessaries the case of complainant Venu is as follows:
On 3-10-2010 he reached the Nileshwar Railway Station by 3.30 AM for going to Guruvayur temple. He enquired about the next train which had a halt at Kuttippuram where he wish to alight for going to Guruvayur. Opposite party No.1 told him that Nizamuddeen-Lakshadeep Express will reach there soon and it had a stop at Kuttippuram. Then as per the demand of opposite party No.1 he paid `53/- and obtained a ticket to Kuttippuram from Nileshwar. Thereafter he entered in the general compartment of the said train. Later by 4.20 a.m. when the train passed some distance TTE entered in the coach and checked the ticket of complainant and told him that he could not travel in that train with the ticket purchased by him and he will be considered as a ticket less passenger and asked him to pay `259/- as fine. Though the illiterate complainant, a coconut climber by profession has told the TTE that he purchased the ticket and entered in the train as per the instruction of 1st opposite party, TTE refused to accept his request and levied the fine. Apart from that TTE did not refund the balance `100/- from the currency note `500/- he give towards the payment of fine. Later when he reached in Kuttippuram Station he complained about the non payment of balance `100/- to one police officer and as per his direction complainant approached the Station Master Kuttippuram and due to his intervention concerned TTE refund the balance `100/- to him. Through out his journey he suffered much mental sufferings and fear due to this incident. All these were caused due to the negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 and deficiency in service on the part of TTE working under opposite party No.2. Hence this complaint claiming a compensation of `25,000/- towards the mental agony he suffered and `259/- that the TTE illegally recovered from him with cost of the proceedings.
2. Opposite parties filed version contending as follows:
It is a sad fact that the people of our nation are yet to become a disciplined law abiding citizens. In spite of the fact that we have attained freedom and became and independent nation 63 years back. The tendency of travelling without valid ticket or with improper ticket is still persists in India and Railways Revenue is badly affected by that menace. To curb that tendency of travelling without valid ticket or improper ticket, the Indian Railway system is having a vigorous ticket checking machinery in the Indian Railways. This checking system exercises that checking of passengers travelling in Indian Railways for detecting the cases of ticket less travel and travelling with improper tickets and collect fines extra fares etc as the case warrants. There are 4 trains from Mangalore to Shronur side in the early morning that have stops at Nilehswar Railway Station, they are train No.6649 Mangalore-Thiruvananthapuram (Parassuram Express) arrives at 05.35 hrs. Train No. 6108 Mangalore-Chennai Egmore Express arrives at 08-37 hrs. Out of these trains No. 2618 Nizamuddeen-Ernakulam Mangala Lakshadeep Express is a super fast express train. To travel in the super fast supplementary charge ticket is to be purchased. The other 3 trains are express trains and only express fare ticket is to be purchased for travelling in those trains. The complainant had purchased an express fare second class ticket for his journey from Nileshwar to Kuttippuram but the complainant boarded in to the train No. 2618 Nizamuddeen-Ernakulam (Mangala-Lakshadeep Express) a super fast Express train for which separate super fast supplementary charge ticket is required. The complainant having a second class express fare ticket ought to have boarded only those express trains. Thus the complainant has committed an irregularity under Section 137 of the Railways Act 1989 by boarding the super fast express train with an express fare ticket on hand. Hence he was imposed with minimum penalty of `250/-. For the convenience of the passengers the arrival and departure of all trains are announced in the public announcing system available in every Railway Station with full details of the train No, destinations, the disruption of train in addition to the display of the details of the arrival and departure of the trains stopping in the station. Therefore there is no room for any doubt or confusion to the passengers in boarding in to the after trains. This is a case of erroneous boarding of a train. The person who violated the provisions of rule laid down under the Railway Act is to be construed as an offender. The allegations that TTE has not returned the balance amount of `100/- is not credible. The true fact is that the checking official has not having change facility readily with him, assured the complainant that the balance amount `100/- due to him will be paid to the complainant from Kuttippuram station and the official has returned the balance due to the complainant from Kuttippuram Railway station duly taking changes from Booking office. The station master on duty witnessed this. The allegation contrary to this is not true. The said train stops at Kuttippuram only for 3 minutes. The complainant boarded in the rear unreserved compartment could hardly be able to reach the Station Master on duty within the 3 minutes time. The checking official himself has got down from the train at Kuttippuram, in order to meet the complainant to give back the money. The checking official of the opposite party has acted only in accordance with the rules and there is no deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation and the complaint is liable to be rejected with exemplary costs.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case. Exts A1 and A2 marked. On the side of opposite parties the Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Palakkad filed affidavit and Ext.B1 marked. Both sides heard. Documents perused.
4. The specific case of the complainant is that he purchased the ticket as instructed by opposite party No.1 the Station Master and he entered in the General compartment by 4.20 a.m on 3-10-2010. According to him there was no announcement or display of the description of running trains in Nileshwar Railway Station and he has not heard any announcement. Further he was ready to purchase a super fast ticket to the place of destination since it is not difficult for him to pay the additional ticket fare for a super fast train as he already spent `53/- for an express train ticket. The time is also had an important role in this case which affirms the genuiness of the complainant. According to complainant he reached railway station by 3.30 am on 3-10-2010 for the purpose of going to Guruvayur temple. The Mangala Lakshadeep express was running late behind the schedule on that date. That was the reason the complainant could catch that train otherwise he would have to wait there upto 5.35 hrs. That be so he should have to spent more than 2 hrs to board in Parasuram express for his Guruvayur temple visit. It is quite improbable that a passenger expecting to board on a train on the odd hrs would spent 2 hrs only to save `9/- which is the ticket fare difference between an express train and a super fast train running in between Nileshwar and Kuttippuram. So it is apparent that the 1st opposite party committed negligence or deficiency in the service rendered to the complainant by issuing an express train ticket that would expect to reach after 2 hrs at the time of issuing the ticket instead of a late coming train reaching in proximity. The opposite party No.1 should have informed about this train and should have given his option to travel is that train. Of course this approach is not applicable in the day time train services.
5. The further case of the complainant is that the TTE did not refund him the entire balance keeping `100/- with him and only due to the intervention of Station Master Kuttippuram `100/- is returned. As against this, the contention of opposite parties is that when the train reached at Kuttippuram the TTE immediately go to the ticket booking office and get the change and paid the balance to complainant who was travelling in the rear side general compartment of the train and the station Master was a witness to it. If the statement of the opposite parties true then there is absolutely no necessity of the Station Master to be a witness of it. How the Station Master happened to witness it? Why the balance is paid before the Station Master? In this regard the contention of opposite parties itself is contradictory. At one point their contention is that the repayment of `100/- is witnessed by the Station Master but on the other point their contention is that the complainant who is travelling in the rear side general compartment of the train could hardly be able to reach the Station Master on duty within the 3 minutes time the train halts at Kuttippuram. So according to opposite parties as per the aforesaid statement there is no possibility of the complainant going to the Station Master for making a complaint. At the same time the repayment of the balance `100/- is witnessed by the Station Master. From the above no more further proof is required to believe that what is narrated by the complainant regarding the repayment of the balance `100/- was occurred only due to the intervention of the Station Master, Kuttippuram is true and definitely the TTE concerned has committed deficiency in service by not repaying the balance is true. Another important question arises at this juncture is that where was the TTE when the train halted on several other stops before Kuttippuram and why he did not make any attempt to repay the balance on those times?.
6. Now coming to the defense of the opposite parties that the people of our country are not yet become disciplined to abide the law and therefore they are travelling in the trains without tickets and improper tickets. Even if it happens whose fault is it? Where were the travelling ticket examiner going when the train is running between the stations? Is it their duty to examine each and every passenger boarding in the train? If the ticket checking machinery were diligent in their duty and service then the ticket less passengers would have been disappeared? It is also seen that the beggars are freely entering in to the train without any kind of tickets and they are traveling absolutely freely. Who give licence to them to travel without ticket? Now a days these ticket less unauthorized passengers became a menace and there are incidents when few of such unauthorized travelers turn out to be chain snatchers, thieves and even murderers. If the Opposite parties are a little interested in the safe and convenient journey of passengers then the begging inside the train should be prohibited.
7. We direct the second opposite party to take immediate direction to prohibit begging in the trains. Let it be outside the railway stations.
8. Now coming to the core issue of the case, according to opposite parties `259/- is charged as per rules as fine `250/- being fine and `9/- being the difference in price of on express ticket and super fast ticket. These rules may be allowing them to collect it. But as in the case of complainant we could not believe that every one travelling with improper tickets are doing it knowingly. Only few who is depending the trains for their regular travel alone are aware about this class or type of trains as contended by opposite parties and the announcements about the type of trains are or the display of the trains is also not working in fool proof manner in the few stations where such facilities are available. There is also no change in appearance or colour for the express train and a super fast train.
9. The opposite parties as already stated are well aware that the people of our country are yet to become a disciplined law abiding citizens. So to tackle such people the railway authorities should be more vigilant and customer friendly. So their rules towards the ticket less passenger and passengers with improper tickets shall be different. While the former deserves no mercy the latter shall be allowed to upgrade their tickets from within the travelling train and the TTEs shall be given authority to issue “Supplementary tickets” for such passengers. So that passenger can board in any train and thereafter pay the fare difference to the TTE.
10. On enquiry it is came to our knowledge that passengers travelling in a train from a branch routes are giving such facilities. If that be so, it shall be made applicable in all the sectors.
11. In view of the discussions above we are of the view that the opposite parties caused much mental agony to the complainant and there by committed deficiency in their service rendered to him. Though the complainant is not entitled for the refund of `259/- which is collected as per rules, we cannot ignore the mental agony he suffered due to the issuance of improper ticket by opposite parties for a super fast train and the non-repayment of balance until the interference of Station Master Kuttippuram. On that grounds complainant is entitled for compensation for the mental agony he suffered.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority V. Balber Sing reported in 1986-2004 CONSUMER 8287 (NS) has held that compensation can be awarded both for mental and physical harassment also and Forum would be open to grant compensation for mental agony.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of `10,000/- towards the mental agony the complainant suffered during his journey. Complainant is also entitled for a cost of `2,000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 03-10-2010 Ticket issued by OP No.1. from Nileshwarm to Kuttipuaram for an amount
of `53/-
A2. Excess fare ticket for an amount of `259/-
B1. Photocopy of Rules Regarding Penalties imposed for various irregularities.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
