Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

104/2015

S.M.Swamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

C. venkatesan

31 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  17.06.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  31.07.2017

 

 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

                    THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

MONDAY THE 31^st DAY OF JULY 2017

C.C.NO.104/2015

 

S.M.Swamy,

S/o.Late Sankaralingam,

No.21, K.K.Salai,

M.G.R.Nagar,

Kalaignar Karunanithi Nagar,

Chennai – 600 078.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The General Manager,

Southern Railway,

Park Town,

Chennai – 600 003.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                     : 08.07.2015

Counsel for Complainant                         : M/s.C.Venkatesan & E.Chandran

Counsel for   Opposite Party                       : Mr.N.R.Narayanen

 

 

                                            

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

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

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant and his eight family members had decided to go to their Kuladheivam Temple at Ponnai Village, Srivaikundam Taluk. Accordingly the Complainant went to Mambalam Railway Station on 23.09.2014 at Chennai and booked tickets for them in train No. 16723, Ananthapuri Express to travel on 14.11.2014 from Egmore to Tirunelveli. While booking the tickets, the Complainant had shown the Aadhar Card of his son Arunachalam as ID. The tickets reserved in the coach S-18 berth Nos.17 to 21, in S-8 berth Nos. 25 to 29.  The Complainant also booked return tickets for them to travel on 16.11.2014 in the same Ananthapuri Express from Tirunelveli to Chennai Egmore in the coach  S-12 with berth Nos. 9 to 14, 17, 19 & 20.

          2. The Complainant and his family members travelled on 14.11.2014 as per their reserved tickets and reached Tirunelveli and celebrated their Kuladevai Pooja on 15.11.2014 and returned on 16.11.2014. While returning on 16.11.2014 at Kovilpatti the TTE checked their tickets and allowed the passengers accepting the Aadhar Card for berth Nos. 9 to 14. However, the TTE did not accept the Complainant’s son Adhar Card for three members’ i.e the Complainant’s daughter - in -law and two grand daughters. The TTE treated them as without ID and imposed fine of Rs.1,485/-. The Complainant and his family members collected the amount and paid the above said amount.

3. One TTE accepting the same Aadhar Card during onward journey for all the nine passengers and on return journey the other TTE accepting for 6 passengers and refusing to accept the same ID for three passengers is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party.  Due to imposing of fine for three passengers the Complainant and his family members are suffered with mental agony. Hence the Complainant issued legal notice dated 29.11.2014 to the Opposite Party seeking compensation. No reply received from the Opposite Party hence the Complainant filed this Complaint seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency in service with cost of the Complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had initially done bulk booking and later on cancelled the name of some of the passengers in the tickets on different dates.  In order to prevent misuse by touts of the bulk booking facility the railway administration insists to submit a copy of ID of one member along with the application. However, this ID is only for the purpose of applying bulk booking and this ID proof is not mentioned in the train tickets.

          5. The subject matter of the tickets issued for train journey in Ananthapuri Express to travel from Tirunelveli to Chennai Egmore on 16.11.2014. The Complainant had also produced another ticket for the same train for six passengers. In order to prevent transfer of tickets, railways have made it mandatory that original ID should be shown by the passengers to the TTE. Therefore the condition, ‘VALID WITH ORIGINAL ID”   is printed in all the train tickets and this system is being followed all over the country. This condition has been printed in the ticket having PNR No.410-0605345 also.

          6. The Complainant’s son had shown his Aadhaar card as ID proof for the other five passengers in the ticket having PNR No.440-0605326 accepted. In respect of the other ticket, which is the subject matter of the consumer Complaint, no one in the group produced original ID and as such under the rules, the passengers were treated to be travelling without ticket. Since the passengers opted to pay penalty, the TTE collected Rs.1485/- and issued Excess Fare Ticket No.0456941 and the passengers also continued the train journey with confirmed accommodation. Further, the TTE had written the Excess Fare Ticket and the reason for issuing the Excess Fare Ticket on the ticket.  For the other ticket under which a woman passenger and two children travelled, the ID proof of the Complainant’s son, who is travelling in a different ticket, will not apply. Moreover, the TTE does not have any power or authority to verify relationships or grant exemption from the rule. In spite of the condition printed on the ticket, the woman passenger did not carry any original ID and so the TTE collected penalty as per rules. In fact, the TTE had not done anything wrong. Therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

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

8. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant and his eight family members had decided to go to their Kuladheivam Temple at Ponnai Village, Srivaikundam Taluk and accordingly the Complainant went to Mambalam Railway Station on 23.09.2014 at Chennai and booked tickets for them in train No. 16723, Ananthapuri Express to travel on 14.11.2014 from Egmore to Tirunelveli. While booking the ticket the Complainant shown the Aadhar Card of his son Arunachalam and the tickets reserved in the coach S-18 berth Nos.17 to 21, in S-8   berth Nos. 25 to 29 and he also booked return tickets for them to travel on 16.11.2014 in the same Ananthapuri Express from Tirunelveli to Chennai Egmore in coach No. S-12 with berth Nos. 9 to 14, 17, 19 & 20 and they  travelled on 14.11.2014 as per their reserved tickets and reached Tirunelveli  and celebrated their Kuladeva Pooja on 15.11.2014 and while returning on 16.11.2014 at Kovilpatti, the TTE checked their tickets and allowed the passengers accepting the Adhar Card  for berth Nos. 9 to 14 in Ex.A6 and the TTE  did not accept the Complainant’s son Adhar Card for three members in Ex.A7 i.e: the Complainant’s daughter -in -law and two granddaughters were treated them as without ID and imposed fine of Rs.1485/- and the Complainant also paid the said amount.

9. According to the Complainant  one  TTE accepting the  Complainant’s  son  Adhar Card during onward journey  for the tickets Ex.A3, Ex.A4 & Ex.A5  in  all the nine passengers and on return journey the other TTE accepting for 6 passengers in Ex.A6 ticket and  refusing to accept for three passengers in  Ex.A7 ticket  is deficiency  on the part of the Opposite Party and  further the Complainant booked group tickets for 9 persons and therefore the TTE ought to have accepted for the other three passengers in Ex.A7 also and refusing to accept the same ID for them and imposed and collected fine under Ex.A8 is deficiency on the part of the TTE and therefore the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service.

 

10. The Complainant case is that he made bulk booking on 23.09.2014 for onward and return journey for nine persons from Chennai Egmore to Tirunelveli and Tirunelveli to Chennai Egmore.   Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 are the return reservation ticket for the Complainant and other eight persons of his family members. Ex.A6 issued for six passengers and Ex.A7 for three passengers. The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant submitted application for bulk booking using Aadhar Card as ID proof on 23.09.2014.  The Opposite Party specifically pleaded in the written version that the Complainant initially done bulk booking and later on cancelled the name of some of the passengers in the tickets on different dates.  If the Complainant booked all the tickets on 23.09.2014 and the tickets also bear such booking dates then the Complainant group of 9 passengers could be considered as group travel. Ex.A6 return ticket bears the booking date as 23.09.2014. However, Ex.A7 return ticket bears the booking date as 11.11.2014. Therefore, as contended by the Complainant all the return tickets were not booked on the same day on 23.09.2014. Therefore, the Ex.A7 ticket passengers cannot be considered as same group of passengers of Ex.A6 ticket.  Since the three passengers for Ex.A7 tickets are different from Ex.A6 ticket, one of the passengers among the three passengers has to show their original ID card. However none of the three passengers were shown their ID Card. Therefore, the TTE treated their ticket for three persons without ID is justifiable and consequently he had also collected penalty under Ex.A8 receipt is also justified. Therefore, in view of such conclusion, it is held that the Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency in service.

 

 

 

11. POINT NO:2

          Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 31^st day of July 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 2005-2009          Complainant’s Ration Card

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Aadhar Card of the Complainant’s son

Ex.A3 dated 14.11.2014                   Train Ticket – S-8 Coach 17 to 21

Ex.A4 dated 14.11.2014                   Train Ticket – S-8 coach 25, 27 & 28

Ex.A5 dated 14.11.2014                   Train Ticket – S-8 coach 29

Ex.A6 dated 16.11.2014                   Train Ticket – S-12 Coach 9 to 14

Ex.A7 dated 16.11.2014                   Train Ticket – S-12 Coach 17, 19,20

Ex.A8 dated 16.11.2014                   Receipt for fine amount – S-12 17, 19 & 20

Ex.A9 dated 29.11.2014                   Legal Notice to Opposite Party with Ack.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      …… NIL ……

 

 

                                     

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT