BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 21st day of December 2013
Filed on :21/04/2012
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member
CC.247/2012
Between
Binish P. Jacob, : Complainant
Pulyattel house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
Peringol kara, Kolenchery P.O., Court road, Muvattupuzha)
Ernakulam.
Vs
The Station Master, : Opposite party
Town Railway Station, (By Adv. Millu Dandapani,
Ernakulam North, Ernakulam. Dandapani Associates,
“Thrupthi”, T.D. Road, North
End, Cochin-682 035)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a social worker and Vice President of Ikkaranadu Grama Panchayath in Ernakulam District. The complainant booked railway tickets through an agent from Ernakulam to Nagapattanam and from Nagapattam to Ernakulam. The tickets were booked on 15-02-2012 for the complainant, his wife, daughter and his mother to travel on 29-02-2012 and for the return journey on 01-03-2012. His mother Mariamma Jacob @ Ammini is a Senior Citizen and concession was granted in her ticket fare. On his return journey on 01-03-2012 at about 8.p.m. a TTE examined the tickets of the complainant and his co-passengers. The TTE demanded proof of age of his mother. Since the name Ammini is not stated in the school certificate, the complainant also produced a certificate issued by the Village Officer stating that Ammini and Mariyamma Jacob are one and the same person. The TTE was not prepared to accept the documents. Instead of that he demanded Rs. 250/- towards bribe not to impose fine. The complainant was not amenable for the demand of the TTE. After sometime the TTE along with another person by name Robert Jayaraj Y came and levied Rs. 540/- from the complainant alleging that the complainant has not produced the age proof of his mother. Due to the above conduct of the employees of the opposite party the complainant had to suffer lot of inconveniences and mental agony. Thus the complainant is before us seeking a compensation of Rs. 95,000/- and also to get refund of the fine amount of Rs. 540/-. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows.
The complaint is filed seeking compensation for the negligence allegedly committed by the opposite party against the complainant and his family. There is only one complainant and other aggrieved persons are not in the party array and so the complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties. It is true that the complainant had purchased a ticket for the journey from Nagapattanam to Ernakulam on 01-03-2012 for him and his family members. His mother by name Smt. Mariamma Jacob who has been given senior citizen’s concession. During the journey Shri. Robert Jayaraj checked the ticket and confirmed that Smt. Ammini 56 years who is travelling in place of Smt. Mariamma Jacob whose age was 58 years. The certificate for availing the senior citizens concession shown by the complainant is of Smt. Ammini whose age was 41 as on 01-01-2007 and the name and age shown in the certificate did not tally with the reservation chart. Shri. Robert Jayaraj penalized the passenger since it was a clear case of transfer of ticket and collected Rs. 540/- from the passenger. The rule for availing senior Citizen’s concession is 50% of concession is allowed for women in the age of 58 years and above and they must produce one of the 8 stipulated identity cards prescribed by the railways during their travelling. There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on their side. Heard the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the fair amount
for the opposite parties?
ii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay a compensation of
Rs. 95,000/- to the complainant?
5.Point No.i. Admittedly the complainant booked Ext. A1 ticket to travel from Ernakulam to Nagapattanam on 29-02-2012 and from Nagapattanam to Ernakulam on 01-03-2012. It is not in dispute that concession under Senior Citizen’s category was granted to the complainant’s mother Mrs. Mariamma Jacob. According to the complainant though the complainant showed the identity card and necessary proof for the age of his mother at the time of inspection. The employee of the opposite party levied Rs. 540/- towards fine stating that the passenger failed to produce required document to prove that she was Mariamma Jacob and also she had not attained the age of 58 to get concession under senior citizens category. The opposite party vehemently contended that the complainant failed to produce Ext. A2 and A3 at the time of the inspection by the special squad, instead of that the complainant produced the voter ID card in which the name of the person is stated as Ammini.
6. Ext. A2 is the admission register of the complainant’s mother which goes to show that the date of birth is 10-05-1953 and so it is evident that she had attained the age of 58 as on the date of travel to get concession under senior citizen’s category. Ext. A3 certificate issued by the Village Officer would show that Mariamma and Ammini are one and the same person. The opposite party relied on Ext. B3 Rules regarding penalties imposed for various irregularities. The said Rule reads as follows:
“7. Concessional Ticket Holder :Wherever instructed the concession
Traveling without original ticket holders should carry the res-
certificate. pective certificates in Original and pro-
duce it on demand. Otherwise they will
be treated as without ticket and
charged as per rules. The concession
ticket held by the passenger will be
forfeited”.
7. Nothing is on record to show that the complainant had submitted Ext. A2 and A3 at the time of inspection by V. George Jayaraj who was examined in this Forum as DW1. Since the passenger had attained the age of 58 years as per Ext. A2 which she fail to produce and the time of inspection but which has been proved beyond doubt in this Forum as per Ext. A2 that she had attained the age of 58 to get concession but had been wrongly come to a conclusion that she is of less age. However proof is before this Forum to the effect that she is actually aged 58 and Mariamma Jacob and Ammini are one and same person as per Ext. A2 and A3. It only seems that the DW1 made an erratic conclusion on the same. As a consequence of which the complainant had to pay the fine amount of Rs. 540/- to the opposite party unnecessarily. The complainant is entitled for the refund of the same.
8. Point No. ii. Primarly we can not find any deficiency in service on the part of the DW1 who is the employee of the opposite party. An officer who is doing his duty can not be complained against. So we refrain from awarding compensation to the complainant.
9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall refund the fine amount levied as per Ext. A5 to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 01-03-2012 till realization.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of December 2013.
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
