BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 227/2003 Filed on 4/6/2003
Dated: 16..02..2009
Complainant:
S. Lakshmi Ammal, T.C.20/2483,A, Chidambara Iyer Street, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V.V.N. Menon)
Opposite parties:
The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai 600 003, Tamil Nadu. The Chief Commercial Manager, of ..do..
(By Adv. S. Renganathan) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 22..03..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The complaint has been filed by Smt. S. Lakshmi Ammal and the facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant along with her son were travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai Egmore on 22/23..02..2002 on reserved ticket Nos.02701778 & 02701779 issued by the Thiruvananthapuram Railway Station Authorities dated 14/2/2002. The complainant being a senior citizen, 30% concession was given in the ticket fare. On 23/2/2002 while they were travelling in Train No.2636 in sleeper coach No.S4 (seats 64 & 65) a TTE of the Railways came and checked their tickets and asked to produce proof of age being a senior citizen. Eventhough the complainant was having proof of age by the Electoral Identity Card issued by the Election Department of the Kerala State, the same could not be shown instantly as the same was kept in the luggage which could not be found out at that moment. The TTE in haste demanded excess fare and collected a huge amount of Rs.344/- from them treating the complainant as travelling without ticket eventhough she had a valid ticket for her travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai on payment of Rs. 225/- on advance reservation ticket. The behaviour of the TTE was quite unbecoming of a Government Railway Servant which is condemnable and to avoid an embarassing situation, the amount demanded by the TTE was paid. The complainant had sent written complaints to the Railway authorities concerned for refund of the excess fare, there was no positive response and hence this complaint.
2. The opposite parties have filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The age of the complainant and her son stated in the complaint are not true. The averments made in para No.3 of the complaint are not true facts, except the fact that the complainant and her son reserved 2 tickets and were travelling from Thiruvananthapuram Central To Chennai Egmore on 22/23..02..2002 on reserved tickets. 30% of concession was given to all Senior Citizens on their request, at the time of reservation of tickets or issuance of tickets. It is true that on 23/2/2002, the complainant and her son were travelling in Train No.2636. It is also true that the ticket checking staff demanded the complainant to produce the documentary proof of her age for verification. But, she was unable to produce the same. The allegation in the complaint that she could not show the documentary proof of age instantly as the same was kept in the luggage which could not be traced out at that moment is totally false and denied. Inspite of repeated and earnest demands made by the Ticket Checking staff to produce documentary proof of age she had not produced the same. Therefore, there was no other go for the ticket checking staff rather than to realize excess charge from the complainant. Accordingly, the excess charge of Rs.344/- was charged by the ticket checking staff, he had done his official duty strictly in accordance with law and the rules. The allegations in the complaint are false and hence denied. Had the complainant produced documentary proof of age at the time of inspection, the payment of excess charge could have been avoided. The complainant never produced the Identity Card as alleged at the time of inspection by the ticket checking staff. As per the instructions of the Ministry of Railways, Senior citizens who have availed themselves of the concession must carry some document showing proof of their age or date of birth issued by any government institution, agency, local body like identity card, ration card, driving license, passport, educational certificate, certificate from local bodies like Panchayat, Corporation, Municipality or other authentic and recognized document and produce the same if demanded by authorized Railway official during the journey. Senior citizens who are unable to produce documentary proof of their age when demanded by the authorized Railway official during the journey are liable to be excess charged in accordance with rules. As per the rules prevailing, the penal charges of Rs.344/- collected by the ticket checking staff vide EFT No.852396 dated 23/2/2002 was in order. Hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the 2nd opposite party vide letter No.C.5081/II/MAS/2002-03/7451/20 dated 21/5/2002. The action of the ticket checking staff is in order and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite parties are not liable to compensate or pay the costs of the proceedings. Hence opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost of the proceedings.
3. PW1 has been examined on behalf of the complainant and marked Exts. P1 to P6. DW1 was examined on behalf of the opposite parties and marked Ext.D1.
4. On the contentions raised, the following issues arise for consideration: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?
5. Points (i) & (ii): Admittedly, the complainant and her son travelled from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai Egmore on 22..02..2002 & 23..02..2002 on reserved tickets. According to the opposite parties 30% of concession is given to all senior citizens on their request at the time of reservation of tickets or issuance of tickets. The complainant has pleaded that at the time of checking their tickets by the Travelling Ticket Examiner, on 23/2/2002, the complainant could not show instantly the Electoral Identity card which was the proof of age, since the same was kept in the luggage which could not be found out at that moment. Anyhow, the complainant has admitted that the same could not be shown at the time of ticket checking by the examiner concerned. The opposite parties' counsel had vehemently argued that senior citizen must carry any one of the documentary proof of age during their travel. If they are unable to produce the documentary proof of age they will be penalised and difference in fare will be collected. As per Ext.D1 “As per coaching circular No.11/12 conveyed under CCM's Circular No.C.170/C/Vol.7/Part I dt: 26-11-1998, Senior Citizens, while booking tickets need not produce any proof or age, to avail 30% concession in the fare. However, as per Board's letter No.TC-II/2151/99/SRC/policy dt: 31-7-2001, the benefit of granting such concession to senior citizens will be given, only if they request for it, specifically, in the Reservation Requisition Form, which will carry instructions to Senior Citizens to carry proof of age, during their journey, to avoid inconvenience of penal charging under extant Railway Rules. In view of the concession now being specifically demanded for by the senior citizens, if they fail to produce documentary proof of age, when asked for by those authorised in this regard, during the course of their journey, they are to be treated as travelling without ticket and charged accordingly". The opposite party has produced the Rail travel concession wherein the above rule has been stipulated.
6. As a passenger, it is their boundant duty to travel with proper and sufficient documents and it is for the passenger to produce the same before the authority concerned when asked for. The complainant has admitted that the record of age proof could not be shown to the ticket examiner at the time of checking. In the above circumstance, we find that there is no cause of action for filing of this complaint and the complaint has been filed without any basis. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has collected a sum of Rs.344/- even though the complainant had availed ticket for travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai on payment of Rs.225/- on advance reservation tickets. This is a matter of pricing. If at all the complainant has any grievance with regard to the collection of excess price from him, this is not the appropriate Forum for the relief pertaining to that since this Forum has no jurisdiction to ascertain or entertain a complaint with regard to pricing. The complainant is at liberty to seek his remedy if any before the appropriate authority for refund of excess price if any collected from him.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 16th day of February, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.227/2003 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : S. Lekshmy Ammal Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of ticket No.027-1778 dt. 22/2/2002 of train No.728 P2 : Copy of Electoral Identity Card No.KL/20/136/213664 P2(a) : Copy of 2nd page of " P3 : Copy of excess fare ticket issued by ticket examinor for Rs.344/-. P4 : Copy of complaint dt. 8/5/2002 sent to the 2nd opp. Party P5 : Advocate notice dated 15/4/2003 sent to the opposite parties. III. Opposite parties' witness: DW1 : Jayakumar Chidambaram IV. Opposite parties documents: D1 : Copy of letter No. U/c. 170/F/Vol.VI dt. 10/10/2001.
PRESIDENT ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 227/2003 Filed on 4/6/2003
Dated: 16..02..2009
Complainant:
S. Lakshmi Ammal, T.C.20/2483,A, Chidambara Iyer Street, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. V.V.N. Menon)
Opposite parties:
The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai 600 003, Tamil Nadu. The Chief Commercial Manager, of ..do..
(By Adv. S. Renganathan) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 22..03..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The complaint has been filed by Smt. S. Lakshmi Ammal and the facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows: The complainant along with her son were travelling from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai Egmore on 22/23..02..2002 on reserved ticket Nos.02701778 & 02701779 issued by the Thiruvananthapuram Railway Station Authorities dated 14/2/2002. The complainant being a senior citizen, 30% concession was given in the ticket fare. On 23/2/2002 while they were travelling in Train No.2636 in sleeper coach No.S4 (seats 64 & 65) a TTE of the Railways came and checked their tickets and asked to produce proof of age being a senior citizen. Eventhough the complainant was having proof of age by the Electoral Identity Card issued by the Election Department of the Kerala State, the same could not be shown instantly as the same was kept in the luggage which could not be found out at that moment. The TTE in haste demanded excess fare and collected a huge amount of Rs.344/- from them treating the complainant as travelling without ticket eventhough she had a valid ticket for her travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai on payment of Rs. 225/- on advance reservation ticket. The behaviour of the TTE was quite unbecoming of a Government Railway Servant which is condemnable and to avoid an embarassing situation, the amount demanded by the TTE was paid. The complainant had sent written complaints to the Railway authorities concerned for refund of the excess fare, there was no positive response and hence this complaint.
2. The opposite parties have filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. The age of the complainant and her son stated in the complaint are not true. The averments made in para No.3 of the complaint are not true facts, except the fact that the complainant and her son reserved 2 tickets and were travelling from Thiruvananthapuram Central To Chennai Egmore on 22/23..02..2002 on reserved tickets. 30% of concession was given to all Senior Citizens on their request, at the time of reservation of tickets or issuance of tickets. It is true that on 23/2/2002, the complainant and her son were travelling in Train No.2636. It is also true that the ticket checking staff demanded the complainant to produce the documentary proof of her age for verification. But, she was unable to produce the same. The allegation in the complaint that she could not show the documentary proof of age instantly as the same was kept in the luggage which could not be traced out at that moment is totally false and denied. Inspite of repeated and earnest demands made by the Ticket Checking staff to produce documentary proof of age she had not produced the same. Therefore, there was no other go for the ticket checking staff rather than to realize excess charge from the complainant. Accordingly, the excess charge of Rs.344/- was charged by the ticket checking staff, he had done his official duty strictly in accordance with law and the rules. The allegations in the complaint are false and hence denied. Had the complainant produced documentary proof of age at the time of inspection, the payment of excess charge could have been avoided. The complainant never produced the Identity Card as alleged at the time of inspection by the ticket checking staff. As per the instructions of the Ministry of Railways, Senior citizens who have availed themselves of the concession must carry some document showing proof of their age or date of birth issued by any government institution, agency, local body like identity card, ration card, driving license, passport, educational certificate, certificate from local bodies like Panchayat, Corporation, Municipality or other authentic and recognized document and produce the same if demanded by authorized Railway official during the journey. Senior citizens who are unable to produce documentary proof of their age when demanded by the authorized Railway official during the journey are liable to be excess charged in accordance with rules. As per the rules prevailing, the penal charges of Rs.344/- collected by the ticket checking staff vide EFT No.852396 dated 23/2/2002 was in order. Hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the 2nd opposite party vide letter No.C.5081/II/MAS/2002-03/7451/20 dated 21/5/2002. The action of the ticket checking staff is in order and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite parties are not liable to compensate or pay the costs of the proceedings. Hence opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost of the proceedings.
3. PW1 has been examined on behalf of the complainant and marked Exts. P1 to P6. DW1 was examined on behalf of the opposite parties and marked Ext.D1.
4. On the contentions raised, the following issues arise for consideration: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed for?
5. Points (i) & (ii): Admittedly, the complainant and her son travelled from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai Egmore on 22..02..2002 & 23..02..2002 on reserved tickets. According to the opposite parties 30% of concession is given to all senior citizens on their request at the time of reservation of tickets or issuance of tickets. The complainant has pleaded that at the time of checking their tickets by the Travelling Ticket Examiner, on 23/2/2002, the complainant could not show instantly the Electoral Identity card which was the proof of age, since the same was kept in the luggage which could not be found out at that moment. Anyhow, the complainant has admitted that the same could not be shown at the time of ticket checking by the examiner concerned. The opposite parties' counsel had vehemently argued that senior citizen must carry any one of the documentary proof of age during their travel. If they are unable to produce the documentary proof of age they will be penalised and difference in fare will be collected. As per Ext.D1 “As per coaching circular No.11/12 conveyed under CCM's Circular No.C.170/C/Vol.7/Part I dt: 26-11-1998, Senior Citizens, while booking tickets need not produce any proof or age, to avail 30% concession in the fare. However, as per Board's letter No.TC-II/2151/99/SRC/policy dt: 31-7-2001, the benefit of granting such concession to senior citizens will be given, only if they request for it, specifically, in the Reservation Requisition Form, which will carry instructions to Senior Citizens to carry proof of age, during their journey, to avoid inconvenience of penal charging under extant Railway Rules. In view of the concession now being specifically demanded for by the senior citizens, if they fail to produce documentary proof of age, when asked for by those authorised in this regard, during the course of their journey, they are to be treated as travelling without ticket and charged accordingly". The opposite party has produced the Rail travel concession wherein the above rule has been stipulated.
6. As a passenger, it is their boundant duty to travel with proper and sufficient documents and it is for the passenger to produce the same before the authority concerned when asked for. The complainant has admitted that the record of age proof could not be shown to the ticket examiner at the time of checking. In the above circumstance, we find that there is no cause of action for filing of this complaint and the complaint has been filed without any basis. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has collected a sum of Rs.344/- even though the complainant had availed ticket for travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Chennai on payment of Rs.225/- on advance reservation tickets. This is a matter of pricing. If at all the complainant has any grievance with regard to the collection of excess price from him, this is not the appropriate Forum for the relief pertaining to that since this Forum has no jurisdiction to ascertain or entertain a complaint with regard to pricing. The complainant is at liberty to seek his remedy if any before the appropriate authority for refund of excess price if any collected from him.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 16th day of February, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER. ad.
O.P.No.227/2003 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : S. Lekshmy Ammal Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of ticket No.027-1778 dt. 22/2/2002 of train No.728 P2 : Copy of Electoral Identity Card No.KL/20/136/213664 P2(a) : Copy of 2nd page of " P3 : Copy of excess fare ticket issued by ticket examinor for Rs.344/-. P4 : Copy of complaint dt. 8/5/2002 sent to the 2nd opp. Party P5 : Advocate notice dated 15/4/2003 sent to the opposite parties. III. Opposite parties' witness: DW1 : Jayakumar Chidambaram IV. Opposite parties documents: D1 : Copy of letter No. U/c. 170/F/Vol.VI dt. 10/10/2001.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
