This complaint  having come up for final hearing before us on 10.09.2014  on perusal of the material records  and on hearing the  arguments of  Thiru. K.Shudhakar, party in person  for the complainant (firstly Thiru.M.Sivaraman, Advocate filed vakalath and subsequently cancelled vakalath  for complainant)  and Thiru. T.N.Elangovan, the counsel for the opposite party  and having stood  before us for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following

By President, Thiru..K.Anbazhagan, B.A.B.L., 

                       This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act 1986.

2) The brief facts of the case of the complainant: -

The complainant bookedthereservation tickettotravel from Thanjavur to Ernakulam-Kottayam on8.3.2011.The ticket number is 60099614 and he has also paid a sum of Rs. 236/- as fare.The complainant reached Ernakulam townRailway Station on the following next day9.3.2011 at 6.00 A.M.out of scheduled time.Then heboarded fromErnakulam Town to Kottayamrunning fromChennai to Tiruvananthapuram viaKottayam Super Fast Express, in the course of journey, from Ernakulam Town to Kottayam, theTravelling Ticket Examiner came to S-3 Sleeper coach andcheckedthe train tickets from passengersandthe complainant ticket was checkedby T.T.E and he demanded a penalty of Rs. 270/- for wrong entrainment in super fast train.The complainant informed the T.T.E that he may collectthe difiference of amountto that of an express train ticket to super fast train, but the T.T.E failed to extend the journey ticket in the super – fast – train.The T.T.Eusedfilthy language and threatened the complainant and throw hisluggage’s from the compartment and in thehelpless situationthe complainantpaid a sum of Rs.270/- vide railway receipt No. G-095337.The T.T.E.failed to allot berth/ seat numberin the sleeper coach.It amount to deficiency in service by the opposite party.The T.T.E is under the influence of alcohol, andunconscious and misbehaved to the complainant.The complaintlodged and registered a complainant against the T.T.E for the collection ofexcess fare against the valid ticket. The complainant demanded refund of the excess fare on 9.3.2011 at Kottayam Railway Station itself. There was no response foraction taken by the Southern Railway to the complaintdated 9.3.2011with the Kottayam Railway Station .On 11.4.2011 the complainant had issued legal notice through his Advocate for which no acknowledgement received by him.

3) The complainantin an another emergency earlier occasion,for medical treatment travelled from Thanjavur to Ernakulamon 21.12.2010 by Tatkal reservation under Ticket No. 02064027.The next day i.e22.12.2010 early morning he travelled from Ernakulam Town to Kottayam Railway Stationin the Super Fast Trainin whichthe T.T.Ecollected normal fare for Rs. 140/- asjourney extension ticket.As per standing railway rules and regulationsjourney ticketcan be extendedeither by railway guardor by the T.T.E available in the coach.There is difference in the ticket fare levied by the T.T.E for the firstjourney travelled on 9.3.2011 an second journeytravelled on 22.12.2010 from the same railway station i.e Ernakulam to Kottayam.Therefore the complainant claimed the refund of excess amount of Rs.130/- + Rs.14/-turned futile.Therefore the complainant has filed this petition for reliefs.

(a) Refund of excess amount of Rs.130/- + Rs.14/- collected form the complainant.

(b) award of compensationRs.1,00,000/- from the salary of the concerned T.T.E.towards damagesfor mental agonyand sufferings and also misbehavior of the concerned T.T.E and to order of the disciplinary actionagainst the T.T.EK.Rajesh, Southern Railway.

                       The compliant referred about two incidents ie. One on 21.12.2010 and another on 08.03.2011 and has been narrated that, both are similar. He continues to allege that, for the same two omissions, the opposite party has inflicted two types of fine. But it is not similar type of omissions committed by the complainant. Hence different type of penalty was collected as per the existing rules.  With reference to his journey on 21.12.2010, the complainant possessed a second sleeper class ticket from Thanjavur to  Ernakulam junction (south) only and not up to Kottayam. He got an extension from Ernakulam Town (north) to Kottayam and was collected Rs.140/-. But in the second journey on 08.03.2011, He possessed a ticked from thanjavur to Kottayam with a reservation up to ernakulam junction (south). He got down at the previous Railway station i.e. at Ernakumalm Junction (north)  instead of his confirmed journey to Ernakulam Junction (south) and he boarded / continued his journey by Chennai to Trivandrum super-fast Mail (Train No.12623) and reached Kottayam. Here fee was collected by the TTE Rs.20/- as super-fast surcharge  and Rs.250/- as penalty totaling  Rs.270/-  In para 3 of the complaint, he had admitted that he got down at Ernakulam Town (North) and boarded in Train No.12623 to reach Kottayam. It established that, he got down  in the previous Railway Station i.e at Ernakulam Town(North) instead of his reserved journey to Ernakulam Junciton (South).

                      5)  The complainant on 8.3.2011  travelled in a Super Fast Train (Train No.12623) and  as such superfast train fare was collected together with the difference of fare between Ernakulam Town (North ) to Kottayam.   When on his 21.12.2010 journey the complainant  reached  Ernakulam Town (North) and boarded/extended his journey by extension ticket to Kottayam and was levied with Rs.140/-.  But on his 8.3.2011 journey, he got a station at Ernakulam Town (North) a station prior to Ernakulam Junction (South)  and continued  his journey to Kottayam by Super Fast Train (No.12623) where Rs.270/- was collected, which train will not go to Ernakulam Junction (South).  The issue of extension ticket on 21.12.2010 was a mistake committed by the said TTE, because the complainant was  not eligible for an extended ticket, since extension are to be issued from destination  points only.  In this 21.12.2010 journey, the destination point is Ernakulam Junction (South).

                  6) The complainant who started his journey from Thanjavur on 21.12.2010, got down at Ernakulam Town (North) a station prior to his   reserved station and boarded the train to reach Kottayam which is one of the routes of journey. But on 8.3.2011, he boarded at Thanjavur and detrained a previous station of Ernakulam Town  (North)  violating his reservation system and travelled in Chennai – Trivandrum Super Fast mail (Train No.12623) to reach  Kottayam which is another route to reach Kottayam. The link train on 21.12.2010 and on 8.3.2011 is super fast train which is not an authorized travel but only on payment of the difference of fare not only for Super fast train fare but for different route of journey.  Therefore, the incidents on  21.12.2010 and 8.3.2011 are not similar or identical, as the complainant claims.

                                   7) The complainant by his break up journey, the Rules regarding break up journey as follows:

                                 (a) A passenger who holds a single journey ticket for a distance more than 500 km can break his journey at any station after travelling 500 km from the starting station.  But in this case  the distance between Thanjavur to Ernakulam  Town (North) i.e the previous station of Ernakulam Junction (South) is 495 kms only .

                               (b) the rule further lays than, break of journey shall not be permitted short of the station up to which reservation  has been done. In this case, the reservation was made up to Ernakulam Junction (South) whereas the complainant had got down at Ernakulam Town(North) a previous station.

                            ( c) The foot note made in the rules specifically states that any halt at  intermediate station for less than 24 hours to board a connecting train will not be treated as a break journey.  However, endorsement on the ticket should be obtained in all cases, while breaking journey, both while breaking and  before  recommencement of the journey, from the staff on duty. Brief of this rule is provided in the Southern Railway Time Table for better appreciation of  passengers.

                            8) Indian Railway Coaching Staff Tariff Part I – Vol. I – 26-R 221 states, “ the passenger is bound to get an excess fare ticket from the Junction station master and obtain an endorsement”.  In this case, the fare on 8.3.2011 journey by the selected route i.e from Ernakulam  Town (North) to Kottayam is in  excess of the original route  Ernakulam Junction (South) to  Kottayam. Ernakulam Junction  (South) is a junction station and there station master is available for collecting the excess fare and to issue an endorsement.    Ticket  checking Mannual Page 129 explains “supplementary charges”.  Those passengers travelling without paying supplementary charges, such  tickets/ passengers are liable to be “excess charge”.   However, passengers holding through tickets and boarding  Super Fast trains at intermediate station should  not be made to pay penalty charges, “If they  have already purchased the supplementary charge ticket”.  In  this case, the complainant had entrained at an intermediate station with a through ticket.  Hence, as per  this rule 221, since the complainant has not  obtained an excess fare ticket and also an endorsement from the Junction  Station Master,  his journey is not  in accordance of the rules and hence the collection of Rs.270/- is justifiable.

                     9) As per the rules, break up journey shall not be permitted short of the station up to which reservation has been done.  If a passenger seeking  reservation on a through ticket requires for break journey enroute, the names  of the stations where the break journey is required   must be clearly indicated on the requisition form.  Reservation in this case will be done  up to break journey station only.

                   10) The allegations levelled against the Ticket Travelling Examiner Mr.Rajesh Kumar are all false and he is not  under the influence of alhocol. The Ticket Examiner  had explained  and repeatedly requested that  the complainant  detrained in the previous station of his destination  mentioned in the ticket  and commences his journey by another train, in such circumstances  the passenger must get the endorsement from the station master which  was failed  in this case.  Since failed to get endorsement  of breakup journey and  for having boarded as a super fast train, has to pay  the penalty of Rs.270/-,  he  refused to accept this explanation and  at  one point agreed  when there  was no alternative to pay the difference of fare for having boarded a Super Fast Train.    The T.T.E has not threatened  the complainant  in any way such as throw  away of luggages and  handing over  to the Railway Police  etc.,  The  extended  journey ticket  issued on 21.12.2010 and error committed  by the Railway staff.  The Ticket Examiner explained  that  the previous  extension journey   was a mistake and  cannot carry to the same.  The Railway department call for explanation  from the ticket examiner  who was on duty on his 21.12.2010 journey and the complainant  can not  justify  the extension ticket issued to him on 21.12.2010, since it is an error  and can not  quoted   for the journey on 8.3.2011 which is not  permissible  under the relevant railway rules. The complainant had issued  a notice through his advocate dated 10.08.201 and 15.09.2011 to the ticket travelling examiner Mr.Rajesh Kumar  in his individual capacity and there by threatened him for the excess collection  of Rs.270/- for the journey dated 8.3.2011 as if that the TTE misbehaved  with him.  After filing  Consumer complaint  before this Forum  without  waiting  for the disposal of the case that the complainant  attempting  to split  the matter and want to carry on dueal  proceedings which is not permissible  under law.  The complainant has not impleaded Mr.Rajesh Kumar as one of the party in this proceedings. The complainant  initiated personal vengeance  against Mr. Rajesh Kumar, TTE.  

                  11) The complainant  could know  since he had an experience by  travelling on 21.12.2010 and has paid Rs.140/- for such extended  journey from Ernakulam Town to Kottayam.  That the complainant  is well aware that his journey dated  8.3.2011 continuation of journey by Super Fast Train from Ernakulam to Kottayam is  unauthorized  one.  He has no reserved ticket to travel in S3 coach in  train No. 12623.  But  however the complainant  himself seated in a vacant seat.  On checking the TTE  Rajesh Kumar found that the  complainant  is without  valid ticket travelling in the train in the reserved coach and hence demanded to pay a sum of Rs.270/- but the complainant argued that he is paid Rs. 140/-  on  previous occasion  dated 21.12.2010 and refund to pay Rs.270/-.  The complainant  abused  the Railway Department for engaging  brainless employees  and for its  management.  The complainant also  threatened the TTE that he will  write complaint  to the  higher authorities and  misbehaved with TTE.  Hence the TTE  asked the complainant either to get down  at the  next station or he has no other alternative to inform  the RPF police. The above said  words were spoken by the said TTE  when all his efforts to pacify  the complainant failed. Only thereafter the complainant has paid Rs.270/- for which and receipt was issued.

                  12)  The complainant  lodged a written complaint at Kottayam Police Station on 9.3.2011 for the collection of Rs.270/- and requested  refund of excess amount. But not  stated other facts such as TTE was under the influence of alhocol  and misbehaved  and used filthy words are untrue.  But in the said complaint dated 09.03.2011 there was no complaint about the personal behavior of the said TTE and it would reveal that his present  allegations are false and are after thought for the purpose of a malafide complaint before this Hon’ble Forum. There was no deficiency in service or misbehavior  as alleged by the complainant and hence  no mental agony  or tension was created to the complainant.    In fact  the complainant alone created bad situation by shouting aloud  and bad scene  in the course of  journey in the compartment.  The intention of the TTE is  only collecting the  penalty of Rs.270/- and not handing over  to the railway police for the alleged misbehavior by the complainant.  Such a lapse was committed by the  ticket examiner for the journey dated 21.12.2010 by issuing an extension.  The complainant can  not take  a wrong precedent to justify his commissions and omissions.   When the matter was pending for enquiry  in the Railway Department but the complainant rushed   to this forum. There is no question of refund of Rs.130/- + Rs.14/-  as claimed by this complainant and he is not entitled any compensation  or costs.  Hence the  opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint  with exemplanary  costs.

13) The points for determination in this case are:

                        1) Whether  there is  any deficiency in service  on the  part of the  opposite

                                 party?

                        2)  Whether  this Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain  in respect

                              of claim of refund of railway fare?

                        3) Whether the complainant is entitled refund of Rs.130/- + Rs.14/-= Rs.144/-?

                        4)  Whether the complainant is entitled damages for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

                             Towards mental agony from the salary of the TTE Mr.Rajesh Kumar?

                        5) Whether this Forum had jurisdiction to  order for initiate disciplinary

                             proceedings against the ticket  travelling examiner Mr.K.Rajesh Kumar?

                        6) Whether  the complainant  is entitled the litigation cost of Rs. 2500/-?

                 14)  POINT No.1 to 3:      The complainant  has filed this  complaint through his Advocate Mr.M.Sivaraman on 7^th June 2011 and the complaint  was returned on 15.6.2011 and thereafter the complaint numbered as CC.39/2011 on 4.7.2011 and the first  hearing is posted  on 8.8.2011.  On 27.3.2012 the learned counsel Mr.M.Sivaraman appearing  for the complainant has filed memo and requested to permit withdraw his vakalath.  Pending main complaint that the complainant has filed a memo on 27.3.2012 with a prayer to receive and mark  two documents  namely  copy of the RPAD letter dated 31.10.2011 sent to the TTE and DRM, Tiruvananthapuram and  copy of the postal acknowledgement  and delivery certificate dated 01.11.2011.  The said memo was returned with the direction to file reopen petition along with affidavit and also raised question when  the counsel on record is available  for the complainant, how this memo can be filed by the complainant in person without  signature of his counsel in the memo.  Hence the memo was returned.  Besides on 15.2.2012 an affidavit  along with petition  under sec.151 of Crpc filed by the complainant to permit the complainant to file additional documents and thus render justice.  It was numbered  as CMP.30/2012 on 10.1.2013 the complainant  has filed a memo in order to issue notice to produce documents by the opposite party by which the complainant wanted to produce  railway fare book for the period commencing from 2010 to March 2011  for the destination  in between Ernakulam  town to Kottayam Railway Station.  From the  notes paper  of the  above  said memo, it reveals the said documents was produced and marked as Ex.B.1 even on 24.1.2012.  For this memo also  CMP number was given as 30/2012 and the same was closed on 13.8.2014 since already Ex.B.1 was   marked  even on 24.1.2012.  The counsel for the  opposite party has filed detailed counter to the CMP.No.30/2012 by which  they have  disputed the facts mentioned in the memo as well as petition and also disputed the signature of the Advocate found in the memo for cancellation of vakalath.  The CMP was closed since Ex.B.1 was marked and Ex.A.6, Ex.A.7, Ex.A.8 were marked.  There after the complainant himself appearing before this  Forum and conducted the complaint in person.     

                       15) The complainant has filed proof affidavit and  there after written arguments.  Documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 marked on  08.11.2011 and Ex.A.6, Ex.A.7, Ex.A.8 marked on 13.2.2014

                     16) The opposite party  has filed their written version on 4.10.2011 followed by filing of proof affidavit on 24.1.2012 and then written arguments filed on 10.9.2014.  On the side of the opposite party Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 marked on 24.1.2012.   Subsequently Ex.B.12  was marked  by  consent on 13.8.2014.  Ex.B.13 and Ex.B.14 marked  without any objections.  Ex.B.15 marked  subject to objections.  Ex.B.15 acknowledgement  card for the proof of service of letter addressed to Mr.M.Sivaraman, Advocate, 199, Main Road, Mannangorai, Thanjavur District.  Ex.B.16 is  office copy of  notice issued from the  office of Advocate Mr.M.Sivaraman to Mr. T.N.Elangovan, Advocate for Railway dated 29.10.2013 along with brown cover pasted  with the postal receipt  in the cover.  Ex.B.16 is also marked  subject to objections.

                   17) I have carefully gone through the proof affidavit filed by the complainant                More or less, the facts found in the complaint narrated  again in the proof affidavit. Then the contention of opposite party found in written version filed by them are also  reproduced para wise.  The written arguments filed by the complainant raised the  following points:-

                      According to the  complainant that  he had travelled from Thanjavur to Ernakulam by Express train No. 16865 through his reserved ticket No.02064027 (Ex.A.5) .  He extended his  journey on the next day early morning from Ernakulam  Town  Railway Station to Kottayam Railway Station in Chennai to Tiruvananthapuram Super Fast Train  in 2^nd sleeper for  which excess  fare of Rs. 140/- paid by him to the duty TTE on 22.12.2010.

                   18) Subsequently, on 8.3.2011 that the complainant had travelled  from Thanjavur to Ernakulam  with an onward journey to Kottayam in Nagoor to Ernakulam Express 16865 under  reserved ticket fare of Rs. 236/- issued from Thanjavur Railway Station PNR No.442-6730717 (Ex.A.4).  On 9.3.2011 early morning reached Ernakulam Railway Station and broke his journey in order to board other journey to reach Kottayam Railway Station and subsequently, he  boarded  the Chennai to Tiruvananthapuram Super Fast Train in Sleeper class for which the ticket travelling examiner collected  Rs.270/-  vide receipt No. G 095337  dated 9.3.2011 and the duty TTE Mr.Rajesh Kumar has misbehaved, used unparliamentary words  against the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant made a complaint on 9.3.2011. under Ex.A.1 to the Railway Station Master at Kottayam Railway Station for refund of excess fare ticket.  Thereafter  on  11.4.2011 the complainant issued legal notice through his Advocate to the opposite party demanding the refund of excess fare amount ( Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3) . On  7.6.2011 the complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum for refund of excess fare ticket of Rs. 144/- and also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  with costs.   Thereafter the  opposite party engaged their own counsel but pending filing of written version  on  27.9.2011 at 3.30 P.M the TTE Mr.Rajesh along with two other railway staff came to his  house  and threatened to him  so as to prejudice this complaint in judicial proceedings  of  Hon’ble Consumer Forum.  The counter filed by the opposite party in the CMP.No.30/2012  contains defamatory statements  against  the complainant and  his father  for which he relied upon  Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.8.  Railway had not taken any steps or  sent any reply for Ex.A.6, Ex.A.7 and Ex.A.8.  In the counter filed by the opposite party disputed  excess fare collection of Rs.270/-  is only a penalty amount but the  railway receipt issued by the opposite party towards  the above said amount is excess fare ticket ( Ex.A.4).

                       19)  While pending enquiry of this complaint, the complainant had filed a memo in this forum to produce certain documents mentioned therein by the opposite party such as date of journey, train No, boarding station, destination journey, extension station, passenger class, nature of travel, category of train, extension fare from express train to super fast train etc.,  

                        (1) The fare charge containing above said particulars and guidelines issued for the collection of penalty amount or excess fare ticket,

                       (2) to produce penalty register and excess fare register attested copy of the super fast train on 9.3.2011 from Ernakulam  town to  Kottayam

                      (3)  notice to produce register letter, postal receipt and postal acknowledgement card for the  alleged reply notice under Ex.B.8 filed in the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party.

                       The  opposite party has filed  the  copy for item No.1,  serial No. 2^nd and 3^rd documents referred above   had not been  produced, as per Ex.B.13  that the opposite party would admit that there is no such  register which is false, suppression of facts and truth before this Hon’ble Forum.  That the  non production  of above said  two documents will  amount to suppression of facts because only a leaf of excess fare ticket register produced.  Ex.A.1  to Ex.A.8 marked on the side of complainant will prove the case of the complainant such as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

                       20) Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.12 are all  irrelevant  documents to prove  the case of  defence of opposite parties. Likewise  Ex.B.14 to Ex.B.16  irrelevant documents  because that the complainant terminated his Advocate Mr.M.Sivaraman from 29.01.2012 and he has also filed complaint before the Bar Counsil of Tamil Nadu and followed by the  writ petition No.8408 of 2012 against the said Advocate. Ex.B.8 is a fabricated  document filed by the opposite party for the purpose of  court proceedings before  filing postal  receipt and postal acknowledgement is  a punishable  act u/s.192 and 454 or crpc  the subject matter of the dispute is  collection of excess ticket fare for which  receipt has been issued by the opposite party towards extending of journey and hence the opposite party is estopped from denying the contention of the  railway excess fare ticket  receipt filed  as Ex.A.4 as if it is penalty receipt.  As per Ex.B.12 Railway passenger  fare tables coaching tariff No.26 (Part-II) mentioned as page No.9, coloumn No.1 proceeds the opposite party ought to have received  fare at minimum distance  for charge upto 200 k.m  at 90/- , supplementary charge for  super fast train Rs.20/- and development charges  upto 500 kms at Rs.20/- total Rs.130/-  but there is no provision in the  default for collection of Rs.270/-.

                       21)  Hence the opposite party collected excess amount against  the approved railway passenger fare.  Since the opposite party failed to produce the  penalty register,  excess fare ticket collection register, this Forum may take adverse inference in this case against the opposite party.  Therefore, the complainant  prayed to allow the complaint and order for refund of excess fare ticket  of Rs.144/- and compensation  of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental and agony and litigation  expenses and cost of Rs.2500/-.

                      22) Ex.A.1 is  the copy of  complaint recorded   Kottayam Railway station by the complainant.  The said complaint dated 9.3.2011  and train No. 12623.  The complaint is as follows:

                      “ Thanjavur to Kottayam Ticket fare Rs.236/- from Ernakulam to Kottayam  by Chennai to Trivandrum mail.  The TTR has charged Rs.270/- vide receipt No.905337 . Please  refund the excess collection of amount”.  Ex.A.2 is office copy of the legal notice issued by the Advocate on behalf of the complainant to the opposite party dated 11.04.2011.  In this notice he narrated the facts  travelling journey on 8.3.2011 and boarded super fast train  at Ernakulam town  on 9.3.2011 at  6.30 A.M in the super fast train  and he demanded  to  refund of excess amount of Rs.130/- + 14/-.  Ex.A.3 is acknowledgement for the service of notice to the opposite party of Ex.A.2.  Ex.A.4 is ticket issued by the Southern Railway at Thanjavur dated 8.3.2011  and  kilometer is 557. He reserved the ticket for the said  journey in S4 -40, he paid Rs. 236/-.   As per this ticket the complainant can travel  up to Ernakulam Junction in the reserved coach in train No.16865.  But  the  ticket was issued  up to Kottayam.  In this connection it would be appropriate to  mention here  that  the complainant detrained at Ernakulam town station itself and  he boarded  another super fast train which is coming  from Chennai  to Tiruvananthapuram  super fast train.  Ex.A.4  ticket is issued  for express  train  not for super fast train.  The  hand receipt issued by the TTR to the complainant for the journey commenced from Ernakulam town station to Kottayam is affixed  in Ex.A.4 itself.  On going through  the Exhibit shows,  no S.F.  Hence charged  under two head Rs.20/- + Rs.250/- total amount Rs.270/- collected from the  complainant.  Admittedly he has  boarded Ernakulam Town station to Kottayam in the Super fast train for which he has no valid ticket.  Ex.A.5 is ticket issued  at the Thanjavur Railway Station  under Thatkal Sewa Journey cum Reservation ticket for   sleeper coach for the  date of journey 21.12.2010.  The complainant travelled from Thanjavur to Ernakulam  Junction  by Express train. On the next day i.e. 22.12.2010 early morning he boarded  the super fast  express train  in order to reach Kottayam for which he  has  charged  Rs.140/- by the  Ticket Travelling Examiner.  Ex.A.6 is office copy of the notice issued by the complainant dated 31.10.2011 to the Divisional  Commercial Manager, Tiruvananthapuram and to Mr.Rajesh Kumar came to the  house of the complainant on 27.09.2011 which is subsequently filing of this case.  Ex.A.7  reveals  reply dated  26.11.2011 issued by the  Department of Posts at Kottayam  with respect to the complaint  made by the complainant for non delivery of registered letter  and the  same  was delivered  through Kottayam  Head office  on 01.11.2011.  Ex.A.8 reveals the complainant himself issued a notice dated 31.10.2011 to the General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-3.   This also  with reference  to Ex.A.2.

                       23)  On the side of the  opposite party  Exhibits B.1 to Ex.B.16 were marked.  Ex.B.1 is a copy of  Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff No.26 Part-1 (Volume –I) in force from January 2007.  To prove  with regard to passenger break  of  journey is alone.  But here in this case that  in the complainant  broke his journey at Ernakulam Town Railway Station  at 495 K.M.  Therefore he is not entitled for break  of journey.  Ex.B.2 is  Ticket Checking Manual,with regard to the  supplementary charges,  the railway is framed by the following rule.

                 “ Supplementary  charges  for travelling by super fast trains, should be levied only one, irrespective of the break of journey.

                    Passengers detected travelling without supplementary charges ticket, are liable  to be excess charged.  However,  passengers holding through tickets and boarding super fast trains at intermediate station as per their tickets should not be made to pay penalty charges, if they have not already purchased the supplementary charge ticket.  They will be charged only the supplementary charge on super fast  trains.  This will apply to all classes of accommodation. “             

                On going  through the  supplementary  charges  it is in respect of break of journey  passenger  travelling without  valid ticket can be  charged only supplementary charges at  super fast train.  Ex.B.3 is the letter given by one  P.Sujeev, Senior Ticket Examiner/Sleeper coach/QLN addressed to the Senior Divisional  Commercial Manager, Tiruvananthapuram Division.  He had given his explaination  regarding the  public  complaint by Mr.Sudhakar.

                   Ex.B.3 run as follows:

                  “He was working  at train No.12623 Express train on 22.12.2010  passenger  Sudhakar approached  him at Ernakulam platform and demanded a journey extension  up  to Kottayam.  At the time  he was having   the ticket from Thanjavur  to Ernakulam South,  but he  got down at Ernakulam North. So in order  to help that passenger he gave  extension up to Kottayam and collected the Railway dues  of Rs.140/-  under  receipt No.F.200264  and permitted  him to  travel   in his coach.  Later he came to know that he has committed  a  mistake in issuing  extension from  Ernakulam to Kottayam.  So kindly  pardon  me   and I would  never repeat this error in future”.

                   24) According to the  contention of the railway  in respect of  collection of  Rs.140/- by the  above said TTE is  not correct for  which memo was issued to him and  received explanation  for the same under Ex.B.3.  Ex.B.4 is a letter of explanation given by Mr.Rajesh Kumar, TTE to his superior officer namely  Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Tiruvananthapuram. He narrated the facts with respect to the travelling of Mr.Sudhakar from Ernakulam Town Railway Station to Kottayam.  According to him a total amount of Rs. 390/-. On  humantation  ground  he charged him only for Rs. 270/- towards  supplementary super fast train excess fare, since  he had ticket up to Kottayam  without Super Fast train ticket.  He also  explained  and  politely spoke  to  the passenger and not  used any filthy language etc., Ex.B.5 is office copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Mr.Sivaraman on behalf of the complainant dated 9.8.2011.  The advocate has narrated the facts such as, “ that the Rajesh Kumar has collected  excess fare and  attributed  used  filthy and unparliamentary words against  the complainant  and also charged  that the  TTE was  under influence of Alcohol   and finally  he demanded  to account of misbehavior within six days  for criminal defamation case will be initiated”.

                   25) Ex.B.6 is copy of the  another explanation letter given by Mr.Rajesh Kumar to the senior officials namely Senior Divisional Commercial Manager/ TVC.  The  Rajesh Kumar was explained for the levy of excess fare Rs.270/- and requested  to deal the  case by department wise.  Ex.B.7 office copy of the notice dated 15.09.2011 issued by advocate Mr.M.Sivaraman on behalf of  complainant ( K.Shudhaker) to Mr.Rajesh Kumar. In this notice also referred earlier  notice dated  10.08.2011 and narrated   all facts of  travelling from Ernakulam Town to Kottayam on 9.3.2011 in S-3 sleeper coach by the Super fast train, and the notice  attributed charges against the  Rajesh Kumar  that he was under the influence of  alcohol and  explanation  given by the complainant turned  deaf ears etc.,  By this  notice Thiru.Rajesh Kumar was informed  to say apology  for such misbehavior otherwise  criminal  defamation  case will be initiated.

                  26)  Ex.B.8 is notice issued by Mr.Rajesh Kumar, TTE to Mr.M. Sivaraman, Advocate dated 06.10.2011.  The said notice reveals that he has issued  this letter to the notice dated 10.08.2011 and 15.09.2011(Ex.B.7 and Ex.B.5).  He has explained  that he did  his duty  as per rule of law. He never misbehaved and he was  not  under influence  of  alhocol.  The  complainant  is failed to understand  commissions and omissions and he  alone misbehaved in unruly  manner  and uncivilized. Since the matter is pending before the Consumer Forum this sort of reply  is sufficient  at this stage.  Now   so for this  Ex.B.8 is concerned  marked on 24.01.2012. But  later on the complainant has objected for marking of this document as if that it was fabricated for the purpose of this  case.  Ex.B.9 is certified copy of the complaint in CC.No.12/2011 filed by this complainant against Thanjavur District Collector. Ex.B.10 is certified copy obtained from the Consumer Forum in respect of CC.No.66/2011 filed by this complainant against the Oriental Super Market.  Ex.B.11 is certified copy  in SR.No.117/2011  obtained by this opposite party from this Consumer Forum to show that the complainant has filed the complaint against  J.K.Electronics and Samsung India Electronics Private Limited.  Ex.B.9, Ex.B.10 and Ex.B.11 would have been produced by the opposite party to prove the cases  were filed by the  complainant against various parties.  Ex.B.12  to Ex.B.16  were marked on 13.08.2014. Ex.B.12 is  Coaching Tariff No.26 (Part-II). This exhibit  was marked by consent.  Ex.B.13 shows  addressed, to Mr.T.N.Elangovan, Railway Advocate that there is no  registers maintained by the Railway Department by the name  “penalty register and excess fare  register” for train No.12623 express and  other matters.  The complainant wanted to produce  penalty register and excess fare register by way of filing of  memo in this Forum for which the opposite party has stated in this matter that they have  not  maintaining such penalty register  and excess fare register  for a  particular train.

                    27) Ex.B.14 is a copy  of legal notice by the Railway Advocate to  the complainant Advocate Mr.M.Sivaraman,  dated 23.07.2013. By this notice that the Railway Advocate has requested  to Mr.M.Sivaraman, Advocate  to furnish reply notice issued by Rajesh Kumar  because  the complainant namely  Sudhakar raised the  contention about   genuineness  Ex.B.8.  Ex.B.15 marked  with  subject  to objection which is an acknowledgement card for the service of notice marked  as Ex.B.14.  Ex.B.16   is a letter  dated  29.10.2013 issued by Mr.M.Sivaraman, Advocate  for the complainant to Mr.T.N.Elangovan, Advocate of the opposite party and this  exhibit shows that he  acknowledged the receipt  of Ex.B.14 so for the records  pertaining  to the complainant in CC.No.39/2011 received by him through District Legal Service Authority on 09.04.2012.  Ex.B.16  attached with the cover and postal receipts of Ex.B.14.  Ex.B.14, Ex.B.15 and Ex.B.16 are produced by the opposite party in order to prove that Ex.B.8 was issued by TTE Rajesh Kumar marked to disprove the  contention of complainant  that  is,  not a  genuine document and only created  for the purpose of this case as alleged by the complainant.

                   28)  Now  considering the  entire facts  as stated supra and careful scrutinisation of the case records of this case including Ex.A. series and Ex.B series that  Ex.B.8, Ex.B.14, Ex.B.15 and  Ex.B.16 are  subsequent to the  filing of the complaint.  The complainant had  not raised any dispute about the  levy of  charges Rs.140/- under Ex.A.4 for the  journey dated  21.12.2010   followed  by next day early morning  journey from Ernakulam Town station to Kottayam.  Under Ex.A.4  the contention of the railway is that the amount arrived at by the TTE is not correct and he has committed a mistake and he has charged lessor amount of  Rs.140/-  that the complainant can not took  advantage  of wrong precedent under Ex.A.4  that the complainant has raised dispute in this Forum that he had been excessively  charged from that of Ex.A.4 i.e  excess amount of Rs.130/- collected under Ex.A.5  so far Ex.A.4 , the opposite party has explained and also issued notice to the erring official on duty on 22.12.2010 and   the Ticket Travelling Examiner Mr.Sujeev had given an explanation under Ex.B.3.  The TTE Mr. Rajesh Kumar has also  had given an explanation  under Ex.B.4  which was already  referred.

“He was  asked  to Pay  Minimum Sleeper Class, Development Charge, Super Fast  and Reservation amounting  to Rs.140/- Excess fare  Rs.250/-   totaling to Rs.390/- for which he refused to pay, I repeatedly  explained  him regarding the  ticket he was  holding, but he was adamant   in not paying the amount, I told him that if he refused pay the amount, I have to call RPF staff on duty as my next option.  After that he request me to minimise the penalty. Since he did not have the  amount of Rs.390/- on humantation ground,  I  charged him  only for Rs.270/- supplementary Super fast and Excess fare.  Since he had ticket  up to 74 KM without super fast”.

                     “ Regarding my behavior, I politely spoke to him, I  have not used any filthy language, his luggage was not pushed from where it was  stand.  I strongly deny that I was  under the influence of alcohol”.

               According to the explanation given by the said Rajesh Kumar that the complainant has travelled in the super fast train and the ticket  he purchased for the  express train alone which is not a valid ticket by the travel  in the super fast train.  However the case filed by the complainant before this Forum is to the refund of collection of excess fare by Mr.Rajesh Kumar and consequential  remedies.  

               29) The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has relied  upon  the following  two judgements.

                                                 (1)  2010(1) CPR 60 

                            Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur.

                                                     In the case of

                                    Jai Narain                                   ….. Appellant

                                                                /versus/

                                    North-Western Railway              …. Respondent

                    “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g),2(1)(o), 14,15 and 17 -

 Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – Sections 13(1)(b) and 15 – Railway Freight – Non-delivery of goods entrusted to Railway – Complaint dismissed by District Forum- In respect of claims for refund of fares, it is only the Railway  Claims Tribunal which has jurisdiction to decide such matters – Fare is charged  from passengers for journey they undertake whereas freight is charged for carriage of animals and goods – Under Section 13(1)(b) for any claim for refund of fares, jurisdiction lie with Railway Claims Tribunal and not before Consumer Fora – Appeal dismissed.

Result : Appeal dismissed.

Important  Point: Consumer Forum cannot adjudicate Railway Claims.

                     “ We have perused the said provisions and are of the view that in respect of claims for refund  of fares, it is only  the Railway Claims Tribunal which has jurisdiction to decide such matters.  Fare is charged from the passengers for the journey they undertake whereas freight is charged for carriage of animals and goods.  Under Section 13(1)(b) for any claim for refund of fares, the jurisdiction lies with the Railway Claims Tribunal and not before the  Consumer Fora.  There is Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which bars the jurisdiction of any  Court or authority to exercise jurisdiction in relation to the matters to Section 13.  As there was a bar to entertain such matters referred by the Consumer Fora,  the Consumer Forum cannot  go into the merits of the case.  The appeal is being dismissed on a ground other than the grounds taken by the learned District Forum.”

                      (2)  another case law 2013(1) CPR 199  (Chhatt.)

          Chhattisgarh State  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur.

                  Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.C.R.                          …..Appellants

                                                               /versus/

                  Vikas Agrawal                                                               …. Respondent.

                   “Consumer   Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 15 and 17 –Railways Act, 1989 – Sections 51 and 52 – Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 – Section 15 – Railway – Amount of ticket not refunded – Appellants have been directed to pay Rs.5000/- by way of compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost – Cancellation  of ticket and refund are questions to be considered u/s 51 and 52  of Railways Act, 1989 and come under category of statutory duty for which no extra amount has been paid and so it is not a “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Complaint of respondent – complainant was not maintainable before District Forum and was required to be dismissed – Complaint dismissed.”

Result: Appeal allowed.

Important Point: When special remedy is provided under Statute, then remedy in Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable to complainant.

                 “ Thus, it was ruled by this Commission earlier that jurisdiction of other Court or Authority have been barred under Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and cancellation of ticket and refund are questions to be considered u/s 51 & 52 of the Railways Act, 1989 and come under the category of “statutory duty” for which no extra amount has been paid and so it is not a “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It has been observed that complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum.  The facts of that case were also similar to the facts of the case in hand.

                      Respondent/Complainant place heavy reliance upon pronouncement of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Northern Railways & Anr. V.Shalini Kapoor which has also been  referred by the District Forum in the impugned order, but in the facts  of that case, the amount of ticket was already refunded by the Railway and only question to be considered is whether any deficiency in service has been committed by the Railway in deciding claim of refund belatedly.  Thus, it appears that facts of that case were quite different.

                  Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager Telecom v.M.Krishnan & Anr. has ruled that when special remedy is provided under Statute, then remedy in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable to the complainant and he is required to approach the Authority, which has been referred by the Statute. That mandate is also applicable in the facts of the present case.

                  Orders passed in earlier cases, which were decided by us on the subject  have not yet been set aside by Hon’ble  National Commission and are having effect of precedence and are binding upon us unless we are convinced that interpretation of law, which was made by us was erroneous and is required to be corrected.  No such position has emerged.  Therefore, following precedence of this Commission itself, we are of the view that complaint of the respondent/ complainant was not maintainable before the District Forum and was required to be dismissed.

                     In result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed.  The complaint of the respondent/ complainant filed before the District Forum, is dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.  Appeal allowed”.

                       30)  I have carefully gone through the above two said case laws and that this Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint  for the refund of excess fare collected by the Railway Department.  This Forum is of the view that the complaint filed by the complainant for the refund of Railway fares is not maintainable before this Consumer Forum.  Because there is a separate Forum for such relief of refund of excess fare collected by the railway authorities.   Since Point No.1 to 3 decided against the complainant.   There is no necessity to decide point No.4 to 6.

                   31)   Point Nos. 1 to 3:    In the result, the complaint  is dismissed  as the complaint is not maintainable before this  Forum, since the  remedy or relief is available before the Railway claims  Tribunal and Sec. 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 which bars the jurisdiction of  any other court  or authority in relation to Sec.13 of said  Act.

                          Point No.4:  Since the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Forum that the complainant is not entitled to claim damages at Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings.

                         Point No.5:  This Forum had no jurisdiction to order the Railway Department to initiate the  disciplinary proceedings against the TTE Mr.K.Rajesh Kumar.

                         Point No.6:  Since the  complaint itself is not maintainable  the complainant is not entitled any costs.

         This order was dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by me on this  30^th    day of  October     2014.

MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

List of documents on the side of the complainant:

List of documents on the side of the Opposite party :