BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 8th day of February,2006
C.C.No.147/2005
H. Bala Maddaiah,
S/o. H. Maddility,
Aged 34 years,
R/o. Dharmavaram (V),
Dhone (M), Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad,
Hyderabad.
2. The Station Master,
South Central Railway,
Dhone(M), Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on 30.01.2006 for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri M/s M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy, Advocate, Kurnool opposite party No.1 and 2, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad,Hon’ble President)
1. This Consumer Complaint case of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and costs of this complaint along with other reliefs which the exigencies of this case demand alleging the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing Super Fast Express surcharge ticket along with express fare ticket on 27-7-2003 to travel in Kongu Express from Dhronachalam to Kachiguda, accepting the tendered fare of Rs.88/- and issuing merely an express ticket of Rs.78/- for travelling from Dhronachalam to Kachiguda and on account of said deficiency the complainant faced an embarrassing situation with ticket collector when he alighted the train at Kachiguda and suffered mental agony as being fined Rs.60/- for travelling without surcharge ticket of Rs.10/-
2. The opposite parties, who caused their appearance in pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, filed their written version denying the cause of action and the maintainability of the complaint alleging no train by Kongu express plied on 27-7-2003 from Dhronachalam to Kachiguda and any ticket as alleged by the complainant was sold to him on that date. But it alleges on the other hand that on 27-10-2003 T.Sreedhar, the Senior Booking Clerk who was on duty in that shift, had issued 12 printed card tickets from Dhronachalam to Kachiguda bearing SL.Nos.67932 to 67943 and the ticket bearing No.67936 was one that was sold to the complainant and the said booking clerk along with printed card tickets of Rs.78/- also issued a supplementary surcharge ticket of value of Rs.10/- to the complainant and the later was fined Rs.60/- as per rules for non production of the super fast surcharge ticket of Rs.10/- and for that the opposite parties cannot be found fault with. The complainant’s alleged addressing a letter on 8-11-2003 i.e. about four months after to the alleged incident and reminders on 7-8-2004 itself casts any amount of doubt bonafidies of in the alleged occurrence as no one could keep quite for such a considerable time if there is any truth in the alleged occurrence. On mere suspicion of Additional Divisional Railway Manager in the letter dated 24-11-2004 on the booking clerk does not suffice to constitute any deficiency of service on the part of the booking clerk and the railway authorities. Therefore, deny the alleged cause of action and the claim for mental agony and the liability of the opposite parties for it and seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A10 and sworn affidavit of the complainant and replies of the opposite party to the interrogatories, the opposite party side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.B1 and the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 and third party and replies of the complainant side to the interrogatories.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and there by any of the liability of the opposite parties to the claim made in the complaint.
5. The contention of the complaint is that he tendered Rs.88/- to the booking clerk of the opposite party towards the purchase of ticket to travel in super fast Kongu express from Dhronachalam to Kachiguda on 27-7-2003 and in the haste of catching the moving train he did not verify the ticket and ultimately after alighting the said train in Kachiguda railway station he was fined for Rs.60/- by railway authorities for want of surcharge ticket of Rs.10/- with him for travelling in said super fast express with a mere express railway fare ticket and the said resulted him much mental agony and insult and that occasioned on account of non issual of said surcharge ticket of Rs.10/- along with express fare ticket by the concerned bokking clerk of Dhronachalam railway station. In substantiation of his contention the complaint takes reliance on to Ex.A1 the express fare ticket worth Rs.78/- issued for journey from Dhronachalam to Kachiguda on 27-10-2003 and the Ex.A2 the receipt issued on the same day in token of the fine collected from him by the railway authorities at Kachiguda. As the complaint alleges the date of issual of ticket and date of travel and said levy of penalty on to 27-7-2003, the Ex.A1 and A2 being of the date 27-10-2003 there appears ever doubt on the bonafidies of said cause of action and the alleged travel on 27-7-2003. Even though the Ex.A3 dated 8-11-2003 says the said occurrence as on to 27-10-2003, the receipt of said letter being denied by the other side, and no substantial proof of its receipt by opposite party being filed by the complainant, the mere assertion in Ex.A3 as to date of occurrence to 27-10-2003, is remaining inconsistent to the complaint contentions. The Ex.A4 letter by showing the date of occurrence to 27-10-2003 and not 27-7-2003 as alleged the complaint. The Ex.A4 is also remaining of any much help to the complainant in substantiation of the complaint averments for the same reason of it being inconsistent to complainant averments. But as the Ex.A1 and A2 in the light of Ex.A3 and A4 and the opposite parties written version contentions admit the issual of ticket to the complainant on 27-10-2003 there remains no much difficulty in appreciating the Ex.A1 to A4 independent of the corresponding pleading in complaint. The Ex.A5 to A8 as relates to the issual of the Ex.A4 to the Regional Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad, who is not a party to this case they do not require any further appreciation.
6. The opposite parties denying the alleged cause of action dated 27-7-2003 of the complainant in the light of Ex.A1 to A4 remains bonafide. As they envisage the issual of ticket on 27-10-2003 as admitted by the opposite party in their written version. The Ex.B1 furnishes the particulars of the number of tickets sold on express fare and surcharge tickets on the day from Dhronachalam. The said particulars being not train wise it is not providing any co-relating material as to which of the express fare ticket pertains to which train and which surcharge ticket to which express ticket on the date and that is why in the Ex.A10 the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Gunthakal has expressed suspicioon on the booking clerk. It being a mere suspicion it can not to take the place of evidence to come to conclusion as to any non issual of the super fast surcharge ticket to the complainant.
7. Before accusing the other one must be diligent at matters with definiteness so as to exclude any other possible chances of error at his end. The complainant having not verified ticket he purchased at the purchasing counter of said railway station itself or before boarding the train but only when being caught and found guilty for non possessing the required surcharge ticket permitting the journey in said super fast express train, remains non diligent in his conduct at the matters and for his said negligent attitude and conduct at verifying the things at a right moment, any amount of mere allegations in the correspondence in Ex.A3 and A4 does not take the place of evidence and the recital in Ex.A10 being a mere suspicion and not a conclusive proof as to any negligence of said booking clerk he cannot blame others none the less the opposite parties or its staff, especially when he fails to mention the correct date of travel in his complaint itself and especially when the sworn affidavit of the concerned booking clerk allege of the issual of the necessary tickets in normal course of business and his mere inability to show cogent record material co-relating to the same in Ex.B1, on account of the defect in the railway administration system in not prescribing maintenance of a proper register to its booking clerks of railway station with the relevant columns for mentioning the sale of train wise journey tickets.
8. Therefore, the fault and negligence of the complainant in the matters being more in not verifying properly the purchased tickets at the time of its purchase before leaving the said ticket sale counter of railway station, he cannot blame with any definiteness as to any fault or negligence of the staff of the opposite party in issuing a proper ticket.
9. Consequently the insult or humiliation the complainant faced in the circumstances of not possessing and producing a surcharge ticket permitting his journey in super fast express train with express fare ticket on its inspection, and the so called mental agony he suffered at own his negligent conduct cannot be attributed to the opposite parties or to its staf’s negligence or deficiencies in its services and there by the opposite parties are remaining at any liability to the claim of the complainant.
10. In the result of the above discussions the case of the complaint being devoid of merit and force is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 8th day of February, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
-
Ex A.1 Railway ticket issued by opposite party No.2 for Rs.78/-.
Ex A.2 Fine receipt, dt 27.10.2003, No. 018741 of opposite party No.1.
Ex A.3 Xerox copy of (office copy) Letter, dt 8.11.2003 of complainant to Regional
Manager, S.C Railway, Secundrabad.
Ex A.4 Office copy of (Xerox copy) letter, dt 7.8.2004 of complainant to Regional
Manager, S.C Railway Secunderabad.
Ex A.5 Courier receipt dt 7.8.2004, AA No. 7734 to G.M, S.C.R, Secunderabad.
Ex A.6 Courier service Acknowledgement of Ex A.4.
Ex A.7 Courier receipt dt 7.8.2004 AA No. 7737 to Station Master, S.C.R. Dhone.
Ex A.8 Courier receipt dt 7.8.2004, AA No. 7737 to Station Master, S.C.R Dhone.
Ex A.9 Letter, dt 26.8.2004 of Chief Commercial Manage, Commercial Branch
Rail/ Nilayam, Secunderabad addressed to complainant.
Ex A.10 Letter, dt 24.11.2004 of Rajiv Chaturvedi, Addl. Divisional Railway
Manager, Guntakal.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parites:-
Ex B.1 Certified true Extract of the “ Daily trains cash cum summary book”
For the period from 21.10.2003 to 31.10.2003
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to
1. Sri A. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri M/s M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
