Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

71/2014

Mrs.Faritha-rafi,Rep by her Power attorney Mr.S.Ismail Khaleel - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, O/O,The General Branch Southern Railway, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Benazir

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  01.04.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  09.02.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY  THE 09^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

 

C.C.NO.71/2014

 

 

 

Mrs.Faritha Rafi represented by her,

Power of attorney Mr.S.Ismail Khaleel,

No.17/35, Sowry Muthu Street,

Mannady, Chennai – 1.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The General Manager,

Office of the General  Branch,

Southern Railway,

1^st Floor, NGO main building,

Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

2. Mr.Malai Arasu,

The Chief Inspector,

Divisional Railway Manager Office,

DRM Complex,

Southern Railway,

Madurai- 625 016.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 07.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. S.Benazir, K.Pravin Kumar &

                                                                    Rahman Sheriff.F S.Jagan

Counsel for   Opposite Parties                  : M/s. N.R.Narayanen, D.Prabhu

                                                                     Mukunth Arunkumar

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant praying to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- and also compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint   u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant submits that she and her two children had come to India to visit her relatives and to attend their relative’s wedding. As such she purchased Reservation cum Train Tickets for themselves from Southern Reservation cum Train Tickets for themselves from Southern Railways through online for travelling on 24.12.2013 from Chennai to Tirunelveli, on 26.12.2013 from Tirunelveli to Coimbatore and on 28.12.2013 from Coimbatore to Chennai. The Complainant further submits that on 24.12.2013 they travelled from Chennai to Tirunelveli in Train No.16723, at that time of travelling Ticket Travelling Examiner (TTE) had verified their tickets along with Original Emirates Resident Identity Cards and allowed to travel them. On 26.12.2013 they travelled from Tirunelveli to Coimbatore in Train No.16609 (Coimbatore Express), at the time of travelling the assigned Ticket Travelling Examiner named Mr.Malai Arasu without verifying their Train Ticket or ID proof whether it is  valid or not and instantly asked Rs.5,000/- from them by Arbitrarily. Due to which she got great shock and surprise and confused any how she refused to give Rs.5,000/- to the above mentioned TTE Mr.Malai Arasu and asked the reason for such exorbitant amount when she had valid ticket and ID proofs. For which the above mentioned TTE Mr.Malai Arasu replied that she and her children are NRI and they have to pay. The 2nd Opposite Party even threatened the Complaint and others that he will call the police to arrest them, if she fails to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- Hence, there is no other go, the Complainant  was compelled to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/-  to the 2^nd Opposite Party TTE and he gave receipt for a sum of Rs.43,075/- even though  he actual by received  sum of Rs.5,000/-. The 2^nd Opposite Party collected amount from the Complainant and others inspite of that she  possessed and shown valid ID proof for their travel, the same was rejected by the 2^nd Opposite Party proves that the Opposite Party have committed Deficiency in Service. Hence the Complainant issued legal notice dated 04.01.2014 to the Opposite Party and filed Complaint to refund the sum of Rs.5,000/- collected from him in an illlegal manner and also for compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant  and other passengers travelled on Tatkal ticket and they have to produce the same  ID card in original which is quoted  at the time of  booking as per Rules. The 2^nd Opposite Party explained the rules and regulations in force to the passengers. Though the Complainant initially refused to pay and subsequently paid the same. Further this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint in view of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act,1987 and therefore in view of jurisdiction the Complainant is liable to be dismissed and the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and  prays dismiss the Complaint with costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the Forum has jurisdiction entertain this Complaint?

          2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that  the Complainant booked  reservation cum train ticket for herself and two others through on-line for travelling on 24.11.2013 from Chennai to Tirunelveli (Ex.A1) on 26.12.2013 from Tirunelveli to Coimbatore (Ex.A2) and on 28.12.2013 from Coimbatore to Chennai and they travelled on 24.12.2013 Chennai to Tirunelveli in Train No.16723 and on 26.12.2013 they travelled from to Tirunelveli to Coimbatore in Train No.16609, Coimbatore Express and at the time of travelling the 2^nd Opposite Party/Mr.Malaiarasu, TTR  who has verified the ticket  and ID produced by the Complainant and the TTR informed her that the ID produced by the Complainant is not valid and therefore he asked them to pay the excess fare and accordingly he collected the amount for 3 persons, including the Complainant and issued Ex.A4 receipt for a sum of Rs.4,375/- to the Complainant.

5. The Opposite Parties counsel specifically contended that the Complaint is not maintainable and the Complainants have to approach only Railway Claims Tribunal in respect of refund of the fares by virtue of section 13 (1) (b) of The Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and hence this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The case in hand is not for refund of fare. The Complainant’s wanted refund of amount which was collected by the TTE as fine. Therefore the contention of the counsel cannot be accepted. Further, section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act Provides for an additional remedy to the consumer not in derogation of any other law. Therefore by virtue of the section 3 of the Act and the complaint filed for refund of fine this Complaint is maintainable in this Forum.

06. POINT NO:2

          According to the Complainant  she had come to India to visit her relative and to attend the relative wedding, she booked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 train tickets to various places and  while they were travelling from Tirunelveli to Coimbatore in B1 coach, at the time of verification of ticket by the TTR, the Complainant produced the correct  ID which has been marked as Ex.A10 as document along with her passport and however the TTR demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/-  from her and when she questioned the same the TTR even threatened her that he would call the police to arrest them and in order to avoid   further embarrassing situation she paid the amount of Rs.5,000/- as demanded by the TTR and however he issued Ex.A4 receipt for a sum of Rs.4,375/- and the act of the TTR is unfair and deficiency in service committed by him inspite of that she had produced valid ID proof.

          7. The Opposite Parties  counsel replied that the Complainant  booked tatkal journey ticket and the said ticket contains ID number which was furnished at the time of booking and the same ID has to be produced at the time of verification during  journey and however the Complainant had not produced the same ID used at the time booking the ticket and she produced some other ID and therefore the travel of the Complainant and others are treated as ticketless travel and hence  the TTR  collected  an amount of Rs.4,375/-  by way of excess fare and others and rightly issued Ex.A4 receipt for the said amount and as alleged by the Complainant, the TTR never collected a sum of Rs.5,000/- from her and therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

          8. The Complainant is residing at Dubai. She came to India to visit her relatives and also to attend to some marriages and for that purpose she booked the above said tickets and also performed her journey with others. According to the Complainant she produced resident proof issued to her by the United Arab Emirates. The said resident proof is available at page 21 of Complainant typed set of documents in Ex.A10. The TTR has not endorsed in Ex.A2 ticket specifically that what was the ID produced by the Complainant for verification of ticket and while he has rejected the same.  According to her the said ID proof was produced by her at the time of verification by the TTR during her journey. The said ID contains No.  A6689449. In Ex.A2 ticket also under the heading T. Authority below the same No.6689449 is mentioned.  Therefore, it is clear that the Complainant used the ID for booking the tatkal ticket she had produced the very same ID to the 2^nd Opposite Party/TTR at the time of checking.

9. Since the Complainant used the same ID for booking the ticket and also used for travel as ID proof and the said ID was rejected by the Opposite Parties and collected amount as ticketless travel of the Complainant and two others is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party is working under the 1^st Opposite Party and therefore the acts and omission committed by the 2^nd Opposite Party also binds the 1^st Opposite Party. Therefore, in view of such conclusion, it is held that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service to the Complainant treating her travel as ticketless travel.

 

10.POINT NO:3

          According to the Complainant she had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the TTR. However the receipt is available only for a sum of Rs.4,375/- and therefore it is ordered that the Complainant is entitled for refund of  the said amount from the Opposite Parties.  Inspite of that the Complainant is in possession of valid ticket and he was treated by the  TTR as ticketless travel caused mental agony to the Complainant is accepted and for the same, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation   and further , she is also entitled  a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses.  

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly or severally are   ordered to refund a sum of Rs.4,375/- (Rupees four thousand three hundred and seventy five  only)  towards the ticket amount to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 09^{th day} of February 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.12.2013                   Tatkal Reservation Train Ticket

Ex.A2 dated 26.12.2013                   Tatkal Reservation Train Ticket

Ex.A3 dated 28.12.2013                   Reservation Train Ticket

Ex.A4 dated 26.12.2013                   Receipt (No.366130)

Ex.A5 dated 04.01.2014                   Legal Notice

Ex.A6 dated 04.01.2014                   Postal Receipt

Ex.A7 dated 07.01.2014                   Acknowledgement

Ex.A8 dated 30.12.2013                   Power of Attorney

Ex.A9 dated 08.01.2014                   Return of Letter sent to 2^nd Opposite Party

Ex.A10 dated NIL                             ID Proofs of the Complainant and her children

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                      …….. NIL…….

 

                                     

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT