DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 24th day of August, 2007<br /> <br /> Present: Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member <br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.159/2006<br /> <br /> P.M.Ravindran,<br /> S/o.M.B.Chandran,<br /> 2/18, Aathira,<br /> Near Kailash Nagar,<br /> Kalpathy, Palakkad. - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs.<br /> <br /> 1.The Divisional Railway Manager,<br /> Southern Railway, Palakkad<br /> <br /> 2.The General Manager<br /> Southern Railway, Chennai<br /> <br /> 3.The Chairman,<br /> Railway Board, New Delhi - Opposite parties <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> <br /> Complainant submits that the opposite parties who are authorities of Indian Railways are providing service to the public in the field of transportation and have monopoly over the provision of the said services. Complainant alleges that the certain decisions/acts of the opposite parties are arbitrary and unlawful as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> According to the complainant submits that Train No.2522(earlier 5221) Raptisagar Express from Ernakulam to Barauni is scheduled to leave Ernakulam at 9:30 hrs and reach Barauni at 22:50 hrs on the 3rd day covering a distance of <br /> <br /> 3441 kms in 61 hr. 20 minutes with an average speed of 56 kmph. This compares with most other non super fast trains. Complainant alleges that the super fast charges levied on 2522 Raptisagar Express is unwarranted and it takes 135 minutes for covering a distance of 78 kms. from Thrissur to Palakkad with an average speed of 35 kmph only. Complainant submits that he was charged Super fast charges of Rs.10.00 while traveling by same train on 17.1.2006 and hence he was eligible for a refund of excess charge levied on account of super fast charge.<br /> <br /> It is further submitted that the distance shown on the ticket issued by the railways, for travel on the Konkan route from Panvel to Palakkad via Shornur is 1485 kms. whereas the actual distance shown in the time table issued by the Railways is 1197 kms. ( details shown below)<br /> i)Table 26: Panvel – Mangalore 905-68 = 837 kms.<br /> ii)Table 85A : Mangalore – Shonur: 307 kms.<br /> iii)Table 86: Shornur – Palakkad: 593-540= 53 kms.<br /> <br /> Total 1197 kms.<br /> ========<br /> This is the actual distance and is 293 kms less than the distance shown on the ticket. Complainant alleges that the fare is for the inflated distance. When the matter was taken up earlier the Railway Authorities vide their Lr. No.C.268/I/Misc. Dtd.24-02-2006 had admitted that they are permitted to inflate the distance by 40% on the Roha – Thokur section of the Konkan Railway which accounted for the inflated distance shown on the ticket. Complainant alleges that whatever be the economics of operating the train services on the Konkan router the authorities cannot provide false information to the passengers and cannot charge fares for inflated (false) distance shown on the <br /> <br /> ticket. Complainant had paid Rs.1185/- including a reservation fee of Rs.25/- and a super fast charge of Rs.30/- and avers that he is entitled to get a refund of the excess charge levied for the inflated distance.<br /> <br /> Complainant further states the opposite parties had introduced Takthal service having service charge of Rs.50/- per berth in sleeper class to cater for the needs of passengers who have to travel at short notice and there was no distance restriction for availing this service and later the opposite parties have enhanced from 50 to 150 and moreover the passenger has to buy ticket not from the station from where he wants to commence journey to his destination station but from the starting station of the train to its destination. Complainant alleges that this is grossly unfair because the passenger is being charged for distances that he does not even travel. Complainant further submits that the same has the following consequences such as; passengers at wayside stations are practically deprived of the facility due to the exorbitant additional cost and since the entraining and detraining stations are communicated to the Railway authorities at the time of doing reservation, the reserved berth can be allotted by the Traveling Ticket Examiners to other short distance passengers even without issuing excess fare tickets and would increase the scope for corruption.<br /> <br /> Having aggrieved by the complainant this complaint filed seeking an order directing the opposite parties to specify the criteria for declaring a train as super fast and make the specification public, not to charge super fast charge till the above requirement is fulfilled, to refund the super fast charge levied by opposite party for his journey by Raptisagar Express of 17-11-2006, to stop falsification of distance on the ticket and to stop charging for inflated distance till a Konkan Surcharge is introduced, to refund the charge levied by <br /> <br /> opposite parties for inflated distance for his journey by Mangla Express on 6-11-2006 from Panvel to Shornur, en route to Palakkad, to stop insisting on passengers buying tickets for distances they do not travel while availing Takthal services, to reduce the charges for Takthal Service to more reasonable levels since in the absence of takthal berths remaining vacant they can always be allotted to passengers on waiting list and there would be no loss to the opposite parties and to costs as deemed fair and proper.<br /> <br /> After admitting the complaint notice was issued to opposite parties for their appearance. Opposite parties appeared and filed version jointly contending the following. The said complaint filed purporting to be under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable in law, since the reliefs claimed are not grantable by this forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act and the cause of action are also not such that reliefs could be granted by the forum. Opposite parties also state that the complaint put forward by the complainant was not on account of any deficiency in service on their part nor were they against the complainant as a consumer. The opposite parties submit that classification of the trains as super fast and levying additional charge were done on the basis of the policy decision taken by the Railway Board in respect of which the Railway Board had issued directives. In accordance with the directive issued by the Board as Telemax No.TC 11/2910/97/SF/Policy dtd.17-09-1998, the average speed of the minimum 55 km/h on broad guage and minimum 45 km/h on meter guage, separately in both directions will be the criteria to categorise a train as super fast for the purpose of levy of supplementary charge. As per the Railway Boards circular dtd.17-9-1998 the criteria for the categorization of the trains referred to in the complaint as super fast are made by taking the average speed and distance. Hence complainant's prayer to specify the criteria for declaring a train as super fast <br /> <br /> and make the specification public and to stop the opposite parties from levying super fast charge are not grantable even on the merits. Opposite parties further contented that on 24-02-2006 a letter has been sent to complainant pointing out the mistakes in the chargeable distance and has issued necessary direction to refund the excess amount by which the reliefs claimed in prayer c to f are answered. Opposite parties averred that they were not in a position to allow reliefs in the prayer g and h the matter was decided by the Govt of India. Opposite parties submit that for availing takthal service the passengers are required to buy tickets from starting station of the train to the trans destination station. This is policy matter of the opposite parties and hence the complainant cannot seek reliefs for the same. It is averred that the 3rd opposite party is an unnecessary party because and they are only complying the policies of Ministry of Railway and the action taken as such are beyond challenge before the forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence opposite parties prayed to accept their contentions and to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1(series) on the part of complainant and Exts.B1 was marked on the side of opposite parties.<br /> <br /> According to the complainant, the opposite parties have to specify the criteria for declaring a train a super fast train and he is entitled to get the refund of super fast charge levied from him for the journey on 17.11.06 from Thrissur to Palakkad by the Train No.2522 Raptisagar Express which covered distance of 78 km with an average speed of 35 kmh. His further contention is that the opposite parties may be ordered to stop falsification of distance on tickets and also to refund the charges levied from him for the inflated distance for his journey by Mangla Express from Panvel to Shoranur en route to Palakkad <br /> <br /> on 6.11.06. It is also requested that the opposite parties may be directed to enhancement of Takthal service charge as well as levying charges for the distance from the starting station to termination station of that train in stead of the actual distance of journey from the entraining station to detraining station by means of which the passengers at way side station will not be deprived of said facility due to the exorbitant additional cost and the scope for corruption can also be avoided to certain extenT.<br /> <br /> The argument of the opposite parties are that the categorisation as super fast train are governed by the Circular of the Railway Board dt.17.09.1998 marked as Ext.B1. The inflation in distance over Konkan Railway and the charges for all tickets including takthal service tickets were determined by the Ministry of Railways on consultation with Railway Board. It is further argued that the Indian Railway Act, 1989, empowers the Central Govt. to fix charges for passengers as well as good. If there is any disputes the Railway Tribunal is empowered to go into such disputes and the application should not have filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as there was nothing like in the nature of deficiency in service providing it a jurisdiction.<br /> <br /> It is very clear from the material placed on record that the complainant's grievances are genuine and the complainant is eligible to get the refund of super fast charges as well as the charges for the inflated distance paid by him for the train journey. We surprise to notice that the chargeable distance printed in the relevant tables of train at a glance were incorrect. There is no doubt that the complainant will fall within the category of potential consumer. Therefore there is no ground to disbelieve his grievance with regard to the charges levied for the facilities not used by the passengers <br /> <br /> under takthal service. But it is obvious that the complainant's grievances mentioned above, are the matters relating to the policy decisions of Ministry of Railways and Railway Board.<br /> <br /> It is viewed that we cannot interfere in the policy matter of Ministry of Railways as per Indian Railways Acts, 1989. In view of the said legal and factual position, the complaint has to be dismissed on that technical ground with an observation that it will be open to the complainant to move an application before Railway Rates Tribunal u/s 38 of Indian Railways Act, 1989. <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.<br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 24th day of August, 2007 <br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> Appendix<br /> Exhibits marked on the side of complainant<br /> Ext.A1 (Series) 10 pages – Complaint dtd.17.11.06 lodged at Palakkad Junction Railway Station <br /> Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties<br /> Ext.B1 - Circular of the Railway Board dt.17.09.1998<br /> Costs (not allowed)