BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 31^st day of October 2017

                                                                                                 Filed on : 12.05.2015

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                                  President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                                  Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                       Member.   

                               C.C.No. 286/2015

                                     Between              

                                                O R D E R

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

1. The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainants,  an young lady  and her husband along with their 4 year old child was travelling from Nagapattanam to Ernakulam in ‘Ernakulam Express’ train plying between Karakkal- Ernakulam  in B1 coach on 24.04.2015.  They reserved tickets in Thathkal scheme on 23.04.2015 from Piravom Railway Station with PNR 4519703889.  The ID card of the 2^nd complainant was referred for booking the ticket. The 2^nd opposite party Sri. Anad, a ticket examiner came and ask for verification of the tickets. Unfortunately, the complainants forgot to take the paper ticket with them. Even though the complainants had shown the PNR details of the ticket in the mobile SMS regarding the allotment of seat numbers and original ID proof of the travellers, the 2^nd opposite party TTE had pushed the 3 passengers out and demanded to pay Rs.6,000/- towards the costs of the ticket or as an alternative to bribe him with Rs.1,000/-.  As the complainants told the 2^nd opposite party that they did not have any money, he demanded the gold ring or gold chain worn by the 1^st complainant to hand over to him. Abusing the complainants, with statements like the train is not their father’s property etc, the 2^nd opposite party had pushed out the complainants and their child at Thiruchirappilly Railway station at 8.00 pm. Even though the complainants made oral complaint against the incident to the Station Master, Thiruchirappilly, he did not take any action. As the complainants were not familiar with the place Thiruchirappilly they had to suffer a lot of mental agony and physical discomforts and humiliation. The complainants have therefore prayed for payment of appropriate compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the 2^nd opposite party and the employees of the Railway administration.

2)      Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They appeared and filed a version through one Mrs. Rajendran, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Thiruchirappilly Division, contending as follows:

3)      On 23.04.2015 at 10.04 hrs one ‘Tatkal Sewa Reservation Ticket’ with PNR 4519703899 was issued across the reservation counter in the computerized passenger reservation system counter operated at Piravom post office. It was a confirmed ticket issued for travel from Nagapattanam to Ernakulam in the third Air conditioned class coach No.B1 with berths No.31 and 32 by train No. 16187 Karakkal to Ernakulam express on 24.04.2015 in the name of the complainants 1 and 2. A self attested copy of any one of the ID proof of 1 or more passengers is required at the time of booking tickets under Tatkal scheme. The passenger will have to carry the original ID card as a proof during the journey, if not, the passenger will be treated as a ticket less traveler and would be charged accordingly. The railway had insisted through the website that a Tatkal ticket holder who booked a ticket at reservation counter cannot travel without his original ticket and if he does so, he will be treated as a passenger without ticket and would be charged accordingly and it was further notified that such a system was implemented to curb the illegal activities of touts. The 2^nd complainant had produced the copy of his driving license before the opposite party (No.7/2679/11) issued by the State of Kerala. Original train ticket bearing No. 451-9703889 was issued to the complainant. On the date of journey the details of passengers with confirmed accommodation, and their PNR nos. are printed in the reservation chart of the coach and were pasted on the outside panel of the said coach. SMS message containing in the above mentioned details were also sent to the passenger concerned in their mobile numbers. However, the SMS message did not entitle any person or persons to enter and occupy the berths and to perform the journey. For the actual performance of the journey the original ticket was necessary along with original Identity cards, on demand by the TTE. It was mandatory for the journey to produce original Tatkal ticket and original Identity card, then only the ticket will be valid. If any one of these documents were found missing, the person would be treated as ticket less traveler. The complainants boarded the train on 24.04.2015 at Nagapattanam Railway station and occupied berths numbers 31 and 32.  When the ticket examiner asked the complainant to produce the original ticket and original ID proof, the complainants were not able to produce, the original ticket.  They could only show the information of SMS message in their mobile phone. Therefore, the Ticket Examiner had treated the complainant as passengers without ticket and excess fare charges were demanded. Since the complainants refused to pay excess charges they were de-trained at Thiruchirappilly railway station at 20.00 hrs. on 24.04.2015.  The 1^st complainant was not a lone lady but had a male companion. Therefore, the action of the TTE to detrain the complainants were justifiable as per the rules in force in railways and Sections 137,138 and 139 of the Railways Act 1989. Railway employees could not be held responsible for the lapses committed by the complainants.  The allegation that the ticket examiner had demanded a fine of Rs.6,000/- or a bribe of Rs.1000/- or gold ornaments of the 1^st complainant are denied as false. The allegation of abusive usage of words by the ticket examiner was also false. The complainant should have filed a complaint before the Controlling Officers of the employee regarding any alleged misbehavior. The complaint is therefore to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4)      The following issues were settled for considerations:

1. Whether the complainants have proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party as alleged?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get compensation as prayed for?
3. Reliefs and costs

5)      The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence as PW1 and Exbt. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainants and the oral evidence of DW1 and Exbts B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite parties.

6)      Issue No. (i)

According to the complainants, a Tatkal reservation ticket was obtained by them in train No. 16187 Ernakulam express dated 24.04.2015 for boarding from Nagapattanam and to travel up to Ernakulam in the third AC compartment in berths No. B1 31 and B1 32.  The chart was prepared and the details of the tickets with PNR No.451-9703889 were sent to the complainant in their registered mobile No. by the 1^st opposite party. Exbt. A1 is the print out of the SMS so received by the complainants which contains the relevant details of their confirmed ticket. Exbt. A2 is the photocopy of the original printed ticket issued by the Railway authorities while booking the talkal reservation. Exbt. A3 is the printout of the railway chart showing the list of passengers to be travelled in the compartment concerned. There is no dispute to the fact that the Exbt. A3 contain the seat Numbers, name of the passengers, and destination of the travelers station, and PNR No. with identification No. of the ID card shown at the time of booking the ticket. It is also not disputed that the complainants were in possession of the original identity card shown by them at the time of booking the tickets. The only thing wanting was the original paper ticket. The purpose of the carrying the railway ticket was to identify the genuine passengers and to confirm that the person travelling was the real person who had booked the tickets for travelling. In this case exbt. A1 mobile SMS issued by Southern railway to the registered mobile no. of the complainant would have given sufficient indication to confirm the fact that the persons travelling were the original ticket holders.  This fact could be ensured by the TTE concerned by verifying the original identity card referred in the application for reservation, which was also shown in the reservation chart.  The non possession of the original paper ticket would not have in no way affected the train ticket examiner in identifying the original passengers. The names, age and destination of the passengers were very much available in the chart possessed by the TTE with him for re-confirmation. The railway authorities detrained the husband and wife with their child around 8.00 pm with an assumption that they were ticketless travelers. We are unable to appreciate this view taken by the opposite parties who are public officers. Exercise of proper discretion is of prime importance while exercising a public duty, where public utility service is involved. We do not think that the 2^nd opposite party had ventured to exercise his discretion in understanding the genuineness of the plea taken by the complainants regarding the non production of the tickets. The section 137 of the Railways Act is not the appropriate Section to the facts of the case, as there was no fraudulent travel in this case. Section 138 of Railways Act is also not applicable as the complainants could not have been deemed as ticketless passengers by person who exercises the discretion diligently. For the same reason the applicability of Section 139 also cannot have the support of law, if the law was interpreted in the way it should have been by a  public servant, who could understand the legislative intention.

7)      It is pertinent to note that the 2^nd opposite party, Train Ticket Examiner did not appear to contest the matter by filing his version regarding the allegation of misbehavior towards the complainants and demand of bribe.  The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of Southern Railway, Thiruchirapilly who filed this version is seen to have justified the action of the 2^nd opposite party against whom allegation of specific misbehavior was made by the complainants. There is no documents produced to show that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager was authorized by the 2^nd opposite party to conduct his case before this Forum. Therefore, we find that the personal allegations raised by the complainants against the 2^nd opposite party has not been defended by the 2^nd opposite party, at the earliest point of time, which would  persuaded us to believe the case of the complainants regarding such allegations as true.  It is true that the Train Ticket Examiner Sri.G Anad arrayed as the 2^nd opposite party appeared as a DW1 in this case, and denied such personal allegations as false. In the absence of filing any version at the earliest point of time regarding such allegations, we are not inclined to believe his interested testimony at the fag end of the trial without any corroborative evidence to support such contention. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to disbelieve the testimony given by the complainant regarding the personal allegations against the 2^nd opposite party. PW1 was very categorical in her statement given before this Forum that she filed the complaint only because of the fact that the railway authorities had misbehaved with her.  Exbt. B1 to B3 copy of circulars and web information will not help the opposite parties in justifying for not having exercised his discretion properly and in a consumer friendly way.

In the above circumstances we find that the complainants have substantially proved the allegations against the opposite parties regarding deficiency in service and indecent behavior. Issue is accordingly found in favour of the complainants.

8)      Issue No. (ii)

PW1 has given evidence that due to the misbehaviour and rude attitude of the TTE concerned (opposite party 2) the complainant had to wander here and there in a railway station which was unknown to them at night. The couples who were holding a child were mercilessly detrained by an officer of the opposite party who failed to exercise his discretion diligently. It is alleged and proved that the 1^st complainant lady was pushed out of the train by the 2^nd opposite party TTE who had no such authority to do so.  There is nothing in evidence to prove that the TTE had requisitioned the service of Railway Protection Force in executing such action lawfully. We therefore find that the complainants are entitled for compensation in an exemplary manner. Accordingly, we estimate the compensation to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainants as Rs.1,00,000/- .Exbt. A4 is the original tickets purchased by the complainant and the bus tickets purchased by them to reach Ernakulam by bus from Thiruchirapilly.  We find that the complainant had entitled to get refund of the train ticket which was Rs.2260/-, paid but unutilized by them fully.

9)      Issue No. (iii)

          In the result, we allow the complaint and direct as follows:

1. The 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/-  (One Lakh) as compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the 2^nd opposite  party  who  is  an employee of the 1^st opposite party, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is  made clear  that the 1^st opposite party Railway authority is at liberty to realize the said amount from the salary of  the  2^nd  opposite  party if

it is found appropriate after following the proper enquiry regarding the incident.

2. We further direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.2,260/-, the cost of the confirmed railway ticket issued to the complainants.

3. We direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay the costs of the proceedings to the complainants which we estimate Rs.5000/- as well.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of October 2017.

Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose,  President.

                                                            Sd/-Sheen Jose,   Member.

                                                            Sd/-Beena Kumari, V.K.,  Member

                                                                   Forwarded by Order

                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Date of Despatch        ::

By Post                         ::

By Hand                       ::

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party's Exhibits:   

Depositions:      

                PW1           :: Siya Joseph

             DW1       :  G.Anand

                            …................