By G. Yadunadhan, President:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that he is an orthopediacally handicapped and he cannot travel without escort. He is a frequent traveler and he possessed a concession certificate issued by Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and he is availing travel concession for the past 12 years. Complainant is a devotee of Boothananda Ashram and the Ashram was conducting a religious function at Thiruvananthapuram. On 9.12.2005 for attending that function complainant on 25.11.2005 tried to reserve ticket in handicapped quota from Calicut to Thiruvananthapuram along with 4 other senior citizens. Opposite party No.1 declined his request for reservation saying that the certificate issued from Medical College, Kozhikode was not valid and it had an extra seal on the photo affixed on the concession certificate. It is the case of the complainant that he availed concession from the opposite parties from 1999 onwards and they have not raised any objection. The medical certificate issued by the Medical College, Kozhikode, clearly mentioned that the complainant is an orthopedically handicapped/Paraplegic person who cannot travel without assistance of an escort. This concession certificate was issued and attested by Dr. K.R. Mohanan, Associate Professor, Department of Orthopediac at Medical College, Kozhikode. The complainant had been using the concession certificate till 29.12.1998, since the railway authority issued an order stating that concession certificate should bear the photograph of the handicapped person, the complainant obtained another certificate dated 1.1.1999 with his photograph. This concession certificate also issued and attested by the same doctor of the same Medical College. When the rejection was questioned, opposite party No.1 mockingly told the complainant that the concession certificate had excess seal on it. OP 1 Specifically said that the seal on photograph was not allowed by the railway authority and on the concession certificate and photo must be signed and stamped in such a way that the doctor’s signature and stamp appears partly on the photo and partly on the certificate. In the certificate produced by the complainant the hospital seal was embossed on the photo instead of issuing doctor’s seal. Likewise, the signature of the doctor available on the photo only, which should be available partly on the photo and partly on the certificate. The Zonal Headquarters instructed to comply this conditions strictly to avoid misuse of the concession and the 1st opposite party cannot offer any special relax on that, that was the reason for the rejection of railway concession. After this, he approached the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party consulted with 1st opposite party. Both opposite parties rejected the request. Due to this illegal action, he could not attend the function. Even though letters sent to the opposite parties his grievance was not redressed. He has no knowledge of English; hence he could not comprehend the notes on the bottom of the certificate. Complainant alleges that due to the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties; he suffered mental agony and humiliation. Opposite parties have not legal authority to reject the concession. Hence he claims a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties filed their version stating that complaint is not maintainable. According to them rail travel concession was not refused to the complainant for the reason that it had an extra seal on the photo affixed on the certificate but it had some defects and was unacceptable to Railway for issuing tickets. Bonafide orthopediacally handicapped person who cannot travel without assistance of an escort are eligible for travel concession on production of a medical certificate issued by Government Doctor for the purpose in prescribed proforma, a passport size photograph of the holder’s duly signed and stamped by the issuing doctor has to be pasted. According to the opposite parties, on notice of the defects in the concession certificate the same was informed to the complainant and he was advised to produce the medical certificate in correct from to avail concession. Informing the deficiencies in the concession form and advising remedial action to be taken by the complainant cannot be taken as illegal act from the part of the railway authorities. Opposite parties are dealing with public money and it is their duty to ensure the genuinenity of the concession. According to them there is no deficiency of service. Opposite parties state that matters regarding the religious function he had enough time, ie. more than 2 weeks to obtain concession certificate in the prescribed from. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> Points for consideration: (1) Is there any deficiency on the part of the oppsosite parties? (2) If so, what is the relief and costs?<br /> <br /> Ext. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> On perusal of the Ext. A1 document, clearly states in its note :the photo must be signed and stamped in such a way that doctor’s sign and stamp appears partly on the photo and partly on the certificate”. This direction has to be clearly fulfilled by the complainant and this mistake is only a rectifiable mistake. When the opposite party brought to the notice of the complainant regarding the deficiency he could have very well rectify the mistake. Opposite party has no case that they will not provide any concession to this complainant but they require statutory compliance of formalities. Complainant had no case that he has approached the opposite parties after rectifying the mistake. At the same time B1 document clearly shows that the signature and seal partly on the photo and partly on the certificate. This Forum cannot find any wrong in insisting such formalities by the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> Hence this Forum cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open court this the 22nd day of October 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-PRESIDENT Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Documents exhibited for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> A1 Photocopy of Concession Certificate of M. Unnikrishnan Nair – Complainant.<br /> Dated 1.1.1999.<br /> A2 Photocopy of Concession Certificate of M. Unnikrishnan Nair – Complaonant, <br /> Dated 29.3.1993.<br /> A3 Copy of letter dated 26.11.2005 issued by the complainant to Divisional Manager,<br /> Southern Railway, Palakkad.<br /> A4 Photocopy of receipt for certificate of posting.<br /> A5 Journey cum Reservation Ticket No. 99527356.<br /> A6 Photocopy of the paper cutting of Mathrubhumi daily dated 15.4.2003.<br /> A7 Leaflets of Sahasra Suvarna Pushparchana Yanjam.<br /> A8 Paper cutting of Malayala Manorama daily dated: 27.11.2005.<br /> A9 series Photocopy of Journey cum Reservation ticket Nos. 23514796 and235112890.<br /> <br /> Documents exhibited for the Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> B1 Photocopy of concession certificate of A.N. Saraswathy.<br /> B2 Photocopy of concession certificate of M. Unnikrishnan.<br /> B3 Photocopy of the form of concession certificate.<br /> B4 Photocopy of letter No.J/G.50/PG/2005/923 dated 17.12.05.<br /> <br /> <br /> -/True copy/-<br /> Sd/- President.<br /> <br /> (Forwarded/By Order)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent.<br />