KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

                   VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO. 737/12

 JUDGMENT DTD:17/12/2013

(Appeal filed against the order in C.C. No. 292/2007  on the file of CDRF, Thrissur,  dt: 14.12.2011)

PRESENT

SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR         :                      JUDICIAL MEMBER                               

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS            :                                                  MEMBER

The Divisional Commercial Manager

Southern Railway, Thycaud,                                

Thiruvananthapuram                                           APPELLANT

(By Adv. Sri. S.Renganathan)

V/s.

T.K. Asokan,

S/o. Late Kesavan,                                                 RESPONDENT

Therli House, Manathala P.O.,             

Chavakkad, Thrissur

        JUDGMENT

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER

          This appeal has been directed against the order dated 14-12-2011 passed in CC No.292/07 by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur whereby and where under the appellant has been directed to return the complainant/respondent Rs.750/- (Rupees seven hundred and fifty only) the fare of the ticket and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) within two months and if the amount is not paid within the period stipulated, the respondents would be liable to pay 12% interest for the compensation amount from the date of complaint till realization.

          2.       Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant purchased ticket from the Appellants to travel from Chennai to Thrissur vide P.N.R. No.4352848108 for train No.2623 of Trivandrum Mail for travel on 28/01/07.  The respondent/complainant purchased ticket for him and his wife, nine years old son and a one and half year old infant.  The ticket purchased by the complainant is for journey on reservation ticket by using sleeper class coach with berth.  On 28/01/07 the complainant arrived at Chennai Central Railway Station at 7.30 P.M. approached the TTE to find the status of his ticket and found out the ticket is still in waiting list, however the TTE asked the respondent/complainant to sit in a seat showed to them and assured to give seats.  On reaching Katpadi Railway station the TTE informed respondent/complainant to get down from train because there is no available seats/vacancy in the train.  The respondent/complainant asserts that he and his family was forcefully evacuated from the train at that night time and hence suffered huge inconvenience.  Immediately on reaching back at Thrissur respondent/complainant approached the appellant for refund of fare but the respondent refused to refund the fare and issued a ticket deposit receipt and asked the complainant to send the TDR  to the Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway.  The Appellant contends the fact that respondent/complainant was aware of the fact that his ticket may not get confirmed at the time of purchasing the ticket itself.  As per rules, waitlised ticket at the time of departure of the train is not a valid travel in a reserved coach.  However the complainant could have cancelled the date of journey with a nominal cancellation fee of Rs.20/- per ticket and could have arranged alternate mode of transportation.  The fare collected is strictly according to the rules in force.  The ticket examiner tried to help the passenger and tried for any probable vacancy in the train up to Katpadi junction and other allegations are false and denied.  The complainant could have applied for a refund from the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (Refunds) pertaining to that division.  But the complainant failed to observe this procedure and applied to another officer.

          3.       The Lower Forum observed that the Respondent/complainant had taken immediate action on the part of his arrival at Thrissu and in the copy of TDR is produced and marked as Ext. P2.  As per Ext. P2 the reason for not granting refund at the station stated as “Time Expired Transaction”.  Lower Forum contended that merely by blaming as the ignorance of the passenger the duty of the station master does not ends.  The Lower Forum pointed out it is not a fair method adopted by the Indian Railway authorities and nothing was specified in the TDR that it must be produced at the Senior Divisional Manager.  Hence the respondent/complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount and is also entitled to get compensation from the respondents for the deficiency in service committed.  The Lower Forum passed order as specified above against the appellant and hence this appeal.

          4.       We have gone through their papers, written notes of argument and considered their argument in the context of the relevant papers and documents available on the record.

          5.       There is no dispute as to the fact that respondent/complainant had purchased ticket which was in waiting list for travelling from Chennai to Thrissur on 28/01/07 in Trivandrum Mail and the respondent/complainant was been asked to leave the train at a different station by the TTE due to unavailability of seats.   We do accept the argument raised by the appellants stating that the respondent/complainant was not entitled to travel in the said train with a ticket which was on waiting list and the person could have cancelled his ticket at the departure station itself without any loss of amount.  But we doubt the credibility of the TTE who allowed the passengers who had waiting list ticket to travel in the train and been asked to get down at a different station, as the TTE would have already received the chart and has a know how about the passenger who will be boarding and getting down at each stations.  TTE being an employee of the Appellants shall be vicariously liable for such an act.  Now regarding the cencellation of respondents/complainant ticket at the departure station itself would had been possible if the TTE would have acted in prudent manner and hence whatever respondent/complainant had suffered was due to TTE act.

          6.       Now after all this while respondent/complainant approached for refunds of his ticket due to non travel he was denied his refund based on real unacceptable facts.  As pointed out by the Lower Forum on the TDR “Time Expired Transaction” any delay occured was due to the inefficiency created by the railway authorities itself.  No satisfactory evidence or clarification of sort appears to have been submitted by the Appellant Railway authorities either by written or oral submission.  The Learned District Forum has considered the legal aspect of the matter and analyzed his conclusion that the Railway Administration was deficient in providing service, with the result that the respondent had to suffer mental, physical agony and financial loss.  So we are not inclined to intereference in the impugned order of the Learned District Forum.

          The Lower Forum order stands confirmed and the appeal, in the result, is hereby dismissed.  The impugned order,  passed by the District Forum, is upheld.

      SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :                    MEMBER

                         K. CHANDRADAS NADAR   :                   JUDICIAL MEMBER                               

nb