Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/216/2011

Bagavatula Prabhakara Sastry - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Railwa Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M. Sriharsha

02 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:20-06-2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:02-03-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President   

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                              Monday, the 2^nd day of March, 2015.

                                  CONSUMER CASE No.216/2011

Between:-

Sri Bagavatula Prabhakara Sastry,

S/o late Narayana Rao, Hindu, aged 53 years,

doing Catering Service, H. No. 49-26-22,

Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam-530016.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.The Divisional Railway Manager,

   Divisional Railway Manager Office,

   Central Railway, Gwalior Post,

   Uttara Pradesh State.

2.The General Manager, Divisional Railway

   Manager Office, DRM Office, Central

   Railway, Gwalior, Uttara Pradesh.

3.The Divisional Railway Manager,

   East Coast Railway, WALTAIR,

   Andhra Pradesh State.

                                                                                     …  Opposite Parties       

                     

          This case coming on 20.01.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M. Sri Harsha, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri P. Ravi Kiran, Advocate for the 1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties and Sri N.V. Badarinath, Advocate for the 3^rd Opposite Party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asked the Forum to: a) Award/Decree in favour of the Complainant and all the three Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and cause of inconvenience, and b) an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of the Complainant.

 

2.       The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

           

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the Complainant booked sleeper class (SL) Ticket through internet i.e., Sub-Agent, S.S. Communications, D. No. 49-27-22, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam-530016, Ticket bearing PNR No.6150397514, transactions ID No. 0280257289 such as S.S. Communications & systems.   The Complainant reserved the above Ticket for Journey from Visakhapatnam to Nizamuddin, Swarnajayanthi Express on 03.12.2010, Train No. 2803, bearing PNR No. 6150397514, Sleeper Class in Coach No.S9, Berth No. 56, date of Booking 01.12.2010.  The Complainant stated that on 03.12.2010 the Complainant started journey from Visakhapatnam to Nizamuddin Swarnajayanthi Express; while the train reached near Agra Station one T.T.C. has come to S9 Compartment and checked the tickets and asked the Complainant to show the Identity Card.   The Complainant showed the State Government I.D. Card, i.e., the Original Identity Card which was issued by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh through Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Visakhapatnam the original ration card issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Government.   The T.T.C. did not accept the original ration card issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh and immediately imposed the excess fare ticket of Rs.740/-, fine ticket No. J 855149, Central Railway dated 4.12.2010 another excess fare on ticket No. J 8555150 an amount of Rs.780/-.     Total fine amount of Rs.1,520/- imposed by the T.T.C.   The concerned T.T.C abused the Complainant with vulgar language even through the Complainant paid the huge amount of fine.    The concerned TTC had detained the Complainant as well as the identity card for about two hours during the course of journey and asked to get down the train by alleging that the Complainant did not have a proper identity.   During the urgency of the journey, having other obligations, the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,520/-, the TTC who issued two receipts for an amount of Rs.1,520/-.     The Complainant further stated that he got issued a legal notice through his counsel to 1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Parties on 22.12.2010 and both parties received notices and kept silent neither replied nor responded, one of the acknowledgment returned on 10.01.2011.   Hence, this Complaint.

4.       The Complainant filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim.      Exs.A1 to A7 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       On the other hand, the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from their joint counter, that it is true that the Complainant started journey from Visakhapatnam to Nizamuddin on 03.12.2010 by Swarna Jayanthi Express and when the train reached near Agra Station one T.E. came to S-9 Compartment and checked ticket and asked the Complainant to show his identity card.   The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 further stated that the Government I.D. Card i.e., original identity card which was issued by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh through Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam.  The Ticket Collector did not accept the original ration card, as per Railway Board Circular No.27/2010 the Ration Cards issued by the State Government are not accepted as Photo Identity.   In this case the Ration Card which was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is not accepted due to the instructions of Commercial Circular No. 27/2010 dated 3.6.2010.   The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 stated that the TTC immediately imposed excess fare ticket of Rs.740/- under ticket No. J 855150 dated 4.12.2010 for two passengers and another excess fare ticket No. J 855149 for an amount of Rs.780/-.  The total amount of Rs.1,520/- was imposed against the Complainant and his family, the fare amount was collected from the Complainant by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 for travelling of the Complainant and his family from Agra to Nizamuddin because the Complainant informed that he was not having money to pay from Visakhapatnam to Nizamuddin as ticket less traveler and the Complainant is not having proper identity, as per Railway Board Circular, hence the journey of the Complainant is treated as ticket less traveler.    The persons who are travelling with e-tickets have to carry their identity which was mentioned in the tickets, time table and Railway Board Circular No.27/2010.    The identity which was mentioned in e-tickets, time table and Railway Board Circular are mandatory for the persons who are travelling on e-tickets, otherwise, their journey will be treated as ticket less travel and they are liable to pay ticket fare, reservation charges, Super Fast Charges and express fare (minimum excess fare of Rs.250/- and maximum excess fair of the fare of the ticket).    In this case the Ticket Collector only charged, as the Complainant is not having amount, ticket fare + Reservation charges and super fast charges and minimum excess fare from Agra to Nizamuddin, but actually the Complainant is liable to pay charges from Visakhapatnam to Nizamuddin because the travelling of the Complainant and his family is treated as ticket less travelers.

 

6.       The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 got filed an evidence affidavit besides  written arguments to buttress their contentions.     Exs.B1 to B3 are marked for the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties.

 

7.       The 3^rd Opposite Party also strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that all internet tickets are issued by IRCTC, (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation), New Delhi, subject to Rules and Production of valid identity proof by e-Ticket holder during the journey.   The 3^rd Opposite Party stated that under the Commercial Circular No. 27 of 2010 dated 03.06.2010 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, the issue of accepting Ration Cards as proof of identity for passengers travelling on e-tickets, fell for consideration but the same was not accepted as a valid proof of identity.     The 3^rd Opposite Party stated that wide publicity is given by the Railway Ministry as to valid ID proofs of Rail Passengers travelling on e-tickets by printing them on e-tickets, displaying the same at all the Railway Reservation counters, IRCTC Web site, Railway Time tables and also at the Railway Stations.   So much so the Complainant who travelled on an e-ticket ought to have carried a valid ID proof and avoided payment of any penalty.   The 3^rd Opposite Party stated that the Complainant did not carry any valid identity proof as required; hence the Travelling Ticket Examiner (not TTE as mentioned in the complaint) has charged the Complainant as per rules.   Even assuming without admitting that the Complainant submitted his Ration Card for his identity proof to the concerned TTE during the check on board, the same does not constitute a valid document of ID proof as per the circulars issued by the Ministry of Railways, and Railway Board, the Complainant is liable to pay the penalty for travelling on an e-ticket without a valid ID proof.   The 3^rd Opposite Party did not receive any legal notice from the Complainant as alleged, as such the Complainant put to strict proof of dispatch as well as the contents of the so called legal notice dated 22.12.2010.   Therefore  there is no deficiency whatsoever in the services rendered to the Complainant by Indian Railways.    On the other hand, the Complainant having admittedly travelled on an e-ticket without a valid ID proof of himself, is a wrong doer, as such he cannot maintain the complaint.

 

8.       The 3^rd Opposite Party filed an evidence affidavit and also written arguments to buttress its contentions.    Exs.B4 is marked for the 3^rd Opposite Party.

 

9.       The matter has been heard on behalf of both sides.

         

10.     After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that as per Ex.B1 (which is also Ex.B4) Commercial Circular No. 27/2010 dated 3.6.2010 issued by the Railway Board, “e) Photo Identity Card issued by Central/State Government” is one of the five proofs of identity prescribed for undertaking journey on e-tickets.   And it is common knowledge that Ex.A6 Household Card is the most important photo identity card issued by the A.P. State Government.   It is outright deficiency of service not to accept as proof the said Household Card (Ex.A6) which was presented by the Complainant herein.   The Opposite Parties should have enlightened their ticket checking staff about the various photo identity cards/Household Cards issued by the Central as well as various State Governments.   As such, the concerned TTC grossly erred in not accepting Ex.A6 Household Card as identity card of the Complainant.   So, the Opposite Parties are vicariously liable for the deficiency of service on the part of the concerned TTC.   The said deficiency of service on the part of the concerned TTC has definitely caused much physical hardship, financial loss and mental agony to the Complainant.   As such, the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant.   As the Complainant is forced to file this complaint because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, he is entitled to some compensation and costs too.

 

 

 

11.     In the result, this Forum directs the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to pay: a) a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and b) Costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 2^nd day of March, 2015.

      Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                       Sd/-

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	03.12.2010	IRCTC’s e-Ticketing Service Electronic Reservation Slip	Photo copy
Ex.A02	04.12.2010	Fine imposed Gwalior, TTC, Ticket Nos. J 855149  and J 855150	Original
EX.A03	22.12.2010	Legal Notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel to Ops 1 and 2	Office copy
Ex.A04	22.12.2010	Two (2) Postal Receipts	Original
Ex.A05	10.01.2011	Acknowledgment	Original
Ex.A06	11.02.2010	Eenadu Paper Publication	Original
Ex.A07	20.01.2012	Eenadu Paper Publication	Original

For the Opposite Parties 1 and 2:-           

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B01	03.06.2010	Commercial Circular No. 27/2010 issued by Government of India (Bharat Sarkar) Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralaya), Railway Board	Attested copy
Ex.B02	02.07.2010	Letter issued by Sr. Commercial Manager/PS for Chief Commercial Manager, South Western Railway	Attested copy
Ex.B03		Southern Zone Time Table and instructions	Attested copy

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the 3^rd Opposite Party :-          

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B04	03.06.2010	Commercial Circular No. 27/2010 issued by Government of India (Bharat Sarkar) Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralaya), Railway Board	Attested copy

 

      Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                           Sd/-

President                            Lady Member                             Male Member