For the Complainant : Mr.K.G.Nagawekar, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 : Mr.S.R.Bhosale, Advocate
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Per :- Mr. J. L. Deshpande, President Place : Bandra
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
::::: JUDGMENT :::::
Facts giving rise to this complaint may be stated, in brief, as follows :
The Complainant –Mr. Hemanshu M. Shah along with his 38 relatives, traveling by Paschim Express Train no.2925. The Complainant along with his relatives going for Mathura for Darshan; the Complainant had purchased tickets from ticket booking counter and some tickets through IRTC.
2 It is the case of the Complainant that while traveling by said train, Ticket Checker –Mr. Johnson asked for the tickets and collected penalty in sum of Rs.28,155/-. According to the Complainant, Ticket Checker–Mr. Johnson threatened the Complainant and asked the Complainant to give in writing that the tickets were purchased from M/s. Gupta Travel Agency. According to the Complainant, the tickets were valid but Ticket Checker threatened the Complainant and obtained false statement on exerting, coercion and undue influence. The Complainant has filed this complaint to seeking declaration about the deficiency in service on the part of the Railway Department and recovery of sum of Rs.28,155/- with compensation.
3 The Opposite party – Railway Department filed written version of defence and denied allegations made in the complaint and stated that the Complainant had booked the tickets through M/s. Gupta travel Agency who was not Authorized Rail Travel Service Agent to issue tickets. Thus the Complainant and his companions were not holding valid tickets. Therefore, penalty was recovered as per rules and receipt was issued to the Complainant. Thus, the Opposite party justified action taken by Ticket Checker- Mr. Johnson.
4 The Complainant filed affidavit of rejoinder to the written version and denied statements in the written version. Both the parties filed their affidavit of evidence as well as written arguments. We have gone through pleadings, affidavits, documents and written arguments. We have heard arguments of both the sides.
5 Following points arises for our determination.
Nos. | Points | Findings |
1 | Whether the Complainant has proved that the Opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service for collecting sum of Rs.28,155/- from the Complainant ? | No |
2 | Whether the Complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with compensation ? | No |
3 | What order ? | Complaint stands dismissed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS :-
6 Along with the complaint itself, the Complainant has produced receipt, dated, 29.10.2010 issued by Ticket Checker under which he collected sum of Rs.28,155/- from the Complainant. That receipt bear signature of the Complainant. In that receipt, it is mentioned that the tickets were purchased through Unauthorized Travel Agent –M/s. Gupta Travel Agency, Bandra –East, Mumbai. Along with the written version of defence, the Opposite party has produced copies of letter / statement which are in the hand writing of the Complainant. In that statement, the Complainant admitted that he had purchased those tickets from M/s. Gupta Travel Agency and paid Rs.40/- per head as service charges. Those statements bear signature of the Complainant.
7 According to the Complainant, he was forced and compelled to write this statement. We find that Ticket Checker –Mr. Johnson had no reason to give threats to the Complainant and to extract such writing from him. Moreover, Consumer Forum is not invested that jurisdiction to decide whether particular statement was given by the Complainant with free consent or under duress. The statement referred, Supra shows that the Complainant admitted to have purchased tickets from M/s. Gupta Travel Agency, Bandra-East, Mumbai. Said agency was not authorized agency by Railway Department. Obviously, the tickets were unauthorized and invalid. Therefore, action initiated by Ticket Checker – Mr. Johnson was as per rules.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Complainant had failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
::::: ORDER :::::
(1) The complaint stands dismissed with no order as costs.
(2) Certified copies of this order to be furnished to both the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
