Order-13.
Date-14/09/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case, in short, is that he is a Practicing Advocate practicing in different courts like High Court, Civil Courts, Alipore Court etc. On 10-04-2017 at about 10.30 a.m. the complainant came to the queue at Metro Ticket Counter at Dum Dum Station with a view to purchase a ticket and the complainant’s turn came before the machine no.21 where a gentle lady was on duty in the Counter. The complainant gave her Rs.50 note and requested her to issue a ticket for Maidan Station. The lady returned to the complainant one 20 rupees note, one coin of Rs.10/- two coins of Rs.2/- and one Re.1/- coin, i.e. total Rs.35/- along with a token bearing No.2468117 which was in her left hand. She did not give the complainant that token from the machine instantly which she used to do generally for other passengers. The complainant thereafter, taking the refunded amount along with token rushed to Station with a view to avail the train and entered into the train which was standing on the station. The complainant states that when the train entered to the Maidan Station the complainant came down from the train and came to the queue to punch the token to the machine with a view to leave the station but when he entered his token into the machine it refused to release the complainant by opening the door. The complainant tried several times and a staff of the metro railway in the meantime called on the complainant and enquired about the problem. He took that token and checked it through their system and told the complainant that the token which the complainant was holding was for the value of Rs.10/- and as the complainant came down within the range of Rs.15/- ticket value machine will not accept it. The complainant explained the matter to the person who was on duty at the platform but he refused to release the complainant, on the other hand that person claimed fine from the complainant as an unauthorized travel. The complainant thereafter went to the Station Manager of Maidan Station and explained the matter to him. One gentleman was sitting there and he demanded Rs.255/- as fine. The complainant tried to convince him several times but he was arrogant and finding no other alternative the complainant paid Rs.250/- as fine to Kolkata Metro Railway. The complainant felt insulted, harassed and failed to attend the appointment with his client. The complainant after day’s work made a complaint to the General Manager, Kolkata Metro Railway. On the next date i.e. on 11-04-2017 complainant mailed to GM, Administrator, Metro Railway to look into the matter. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service against the OP. The complainant has alleged that he has suffered irreparable loss and injury and has been subject to tremendous physical and mental harassment, insult and financial loss. The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.255/- along with other reliefs in terms of prayers in the petition of complaint.
OP has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable either in law or in fact. The statements in paragraphs No. 1 to 4 and 13 are denied by the OP. OP has also denied and disputed the correctness of story made by the complainant. It is stated that on one hand complainant stated that the concerned lady in the counter returned Rs.35/- out of Rs.50/- note along with a token which was in her left hand. On the other hand he stated that she did not give the complainant the token from the machine instantly which she was doing for other passengers. It is stated that complainant brought the token of Rs.10/- only for his tour and the token which was given to the complainant which was generated from the machine itself for which reason he did not object instantly. The complainant was detected at the gate of Maidan Station with a short journey token, on checking it was found that the complainant was carrying a short journey token i.e. Rs.10/- instead of Rs.15/- which was actual fare. The staff on duty at the gate rightly performed his duty. Moreover, there is a fare display board at the backside of the post/ticket issuing machine in front of at the eye level of the passengers wherein the fare being realized from a passenger is displayed. In addition to above there are two more options wherein the passenger could have checked status of his token by way of equipment called CBCT (Card Balance Checking Terminal) kept beside Booking Office and another is at the display on the gate itself while entering into the gate. It is stated that the Station Manager on duty at Maidan Station has rightly performed his duty by realizing the penalty u/s.137 and Section 138 of Indian Railway Act. It is stated that the allegation of harassment and insult is totally baseless. It is stated that the allegations of the complainant are all baseless and the case is filed to malign the image of OP. The OP has also denied the deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OP is deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Let us we take up both the points together for the sake of brevity and convenience of discussion.
Let us take a glance towards the documents as filed from the side of respective sides. Perused the Xerox copy of payment of Rs.255/-, Xerox copy of emails dated 10-04-2017 as filed from the side of the complainant.
We have also travelled over the documents filed from the side of the OP i.e. Xerox copy of commerce circular no.18, Xerox copy of circular No.03/C/003/2004, Xerox copy of business rule for passengers in Kolkata Metro, Xerox copy of statement of Traffic Supervisor dated 10-04-2017, Xerox copy of statement of Juthika Bandyopadhyay, Dealing Clerk dated 10-04-2017, Xerox copy of personal cash declaration register, Xerox copy of statement of Shri Dilip Chowdhury, SKDM dated 29-05-2017 and other documents on record.
We have to decide whether there has been any deficiency or lapse of service on the part of OP Metro Railway.
The crux of controversy is whether the complainant purchased a ticket of Rs.15/- or Rs.10/-. Admittedly, the complainant was at the gate of Maidan Station with a short journey token and he was refused exit from the gate of Maidan Station by the checking machine. The duty staff at the gate of Maidan came up and on checking it was found that a short journey token i.e. Rs.10/- instead of Rs.15/- was in possession of the complainant. It is stated from the side of the OP that the actual fare is Rs.15/- and not Rs.10/-. It is stated by the complainant that he brought the token of Rs.15/- and he gave a Rs.50/- note and Rs.35/- was returned to the complainant by the concerned Dealing Clerk at the counter. On the other hand OP came up with some statement of the Dealing Clerk and Station Manager that complainant actually purchased a token of Rs.10/-. There is oath vs. oath from the respective sides on such debatable point and it becomes increasingly difficult on our part to ascertain whether the complainant purchased a ticket of Rs.10/- or Rs.15/-. It is the duty of a person to check out about the value of the ticket or change he receives instant at the counter. But complainant as he has stated was very much busy with a pre-appoint client meeting and he rushed to the station with a view to avail on the train and entered into the train. So, we find that the complainant did not check out fare at the display board at the station. It is stated by the OP that there is a fare display board at the backside of post/ticket issuing machine in front at the eye level of the passengers wherein the fare being realized from the passenger is displayed. Additionally there are two more options where the passenger could check the status of his token, i.e. card balance checking terminal(CBCT) kept beside booking office and another is at the office and display on the gate itself. May be and quite normally it is not possible for each and every passenger to observe display board or check the token on CBCT because of hurry, congestion, lack of time etc. etc. So, it becomes difficult on our part to fix up the responsibility on the shoulder of the complainant or the ticket issuing clerk but the fact remains that the token which is issued to the passengers being generated from the machine does not bear any insertion of the value of the token itself. Strangely enough token issued by the Metro Railway does not bear the value of the same. There is no mention of the price of the ticket on the Metro token. We know that in open Railway, tickets being issued bear and/or contain the price of the ticket. The price of the ticket is available on the tickets both for local and distant Indian Railways. May be the man at the counter may punch a wrong fare ticket or a passenger may travel with a short distant ticket in spite of asking for proper ticket but the metro passengers are being deprived for such sort of lacunae on the part of Metro Railways and non-mentioning of the value of the ticket causes confusion. It is not also possible for the passengers to observe the price is being displayed on the display board all the time. If there is any error at the time of punching it cannot be ascertained for non-mentioning of amount or value on the token itself. Even if it is not possible, we think that token of the particular colour – black, yellow or blue may be printed or punched for ascertaining the value or denomination of the token or ticket. We find that the non-mentioning of the amount on the token is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP Railway. We think that OP Railway should at least maintain colours of the token against respective value or price of the token/ticket. We think that non-mentioning of the price on token is, of course, a deficiency in service on the part of the OP Railway. In the instant case non-mentioning of the value of the token has triggered the controversy. OP Railway has been generating tokens from the machine without insertion of the price on the token or without maintaining any particular colour against a particular price of a token and we think that it tantamounts to deficiency in service. It is expected that a service provider must endorse the price on the token and/or ticket issued to its customer.
Consequently, the case merit success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.255/- in favour of the complainant apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within one month from the date of this order.
In the facts and circumstances, we make no order as to compensation.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.
