DOF.18.10.2007

DOO.4.9.2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

                                     Dated this, the 4^th  day of  September      2010

C.C.No.176/2007

T.K.sidharathan,

Lakshmi,

Talap,

Kannur.                                                                                    Complainant

(Rep. by Adv.P.V.Abhayakumar)

1. Manager,

    Kannur Railway station, Kannur.

2. General Manger,

   Southern Railway, Madras.

3, General Manger,

   South Central Railway,

   Secondarabad.                                                                      Opposite party

  (Rep. by Adv.T.Ramakrishnan)

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5488/-  the extra amount charged by the TTI and Rs.50000/- as compensation.

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: the complaint had reserved four second class AC tickets at Kannur Railway station. The tickets were with PNR.o.4145130889 journey dated 21.3.03 from Palakkad to New Jalpai Gudi and return ticket with PNR.No.6356844625 dated 29.3.06. On 29.3.06 the complainant and three others boarded in the train from New Jalpi Gudi station. During the journey, after two days on 31.3.06, one TTI by name Revi Babu A. No.4564 Vijayavada entered in the compartment for checking the ticket. The complainant showed the ticket for verification. Then TTI uttered that complainant was not the person who reserved the tickets with others and he was traveling with the ticket of another person named Sreedharan. Though complainant tried his level best to convince the TTI the genuiness TTI did not accepted any of those explanations and he had charged an amount of Rs.5488/- from the complainant as fare. There was no default on complainant’s side. He has filled the reservation form correctly. If any default is committed that is only a clerical mistake on the part of Kannur Railway station. So charging of the fine is an improper. The complaint is an aged person doing business in Cannanore. The TTI had insulted him in front of other passengers and the complainant suffered much mental pain. Usually no name is nothing in the reservation ticket but only the age and sex whether male or female, are noted in it. The passengers are unable to know that the name on the document. Complainant sent lawyer notices but opposite party did not even sent a reply. Hence this complaint.

Pursuant to the notice opposite parties’ entered appearance and filed version denying the allegations of complainant. The case of the opposite party in brief are as  follows: During the  checking it was  found that name of the complainant was recorded in the reservation charge as Sridharan whereas the voters identity shows the name of the complaint s Sidhrathan. So that the ticket checking staff had collected the excess fare for transfer of ticket and the amount was remitted to railway. He has done his duty in proper ways. The cause of action took place due to the clerical error hence refund of excess charge will be arranged to refund immediately.

            On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

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

2. Whether the complaint is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint? If

     so the quantum?

3. Releif and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral evidence of complaint as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3. No evidence adduced on the side of opposite parties.

Issue Nos.1 to3

            The case of the complainant is that during his journey the ticket examiner of the Railway insulted him in front of other travelers telling him that he was travelling with the ticket of another person. All his attempts to convince the truth were blandly rejected by the TTI and he charged an amount of fine Rs.5, 488/- from complainant. Opposite a party though filed version denying the allegation of complainant admitted that the cause of action took place due to clerical error hence refund of excess charge will be arranged to refund immediately.

            As stated in the version opposite party has already refunded the amount to complainant. Complainant received the cheque for Rs.5488/- issued in his name by the opposite party. Hence in practical sense the actual excess amount collected by the opposite party by way of fine has already been refunded. It is refunded because an error happened to be taken place on the part of opposite party.

            It is a fact that opposite party refunded this amount only after filing this complaint. It has to be taken in to court that opposite party ignored the lawyer notice sent by the complainant. A person who was traveling with his family facing such situation as it is happened as mentioned above it will cause great mental pain to him and his family and he journey itself would be a miserable one thereafter. Though appositive attitude has been shown after filing the complaint the injury that caused due to the deficiency in service cannot be left ignored. We have no hesitation to hold that complainant is entitled for compensation. Taking into account the entire aspect we are of opinion that a sum of Rs.5000/- will be a reasonable amount for compensating for the injury sustained by the complainant  due to  the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complainant is also entitled for amount of Rs.1000/- as cost. Hence issues 1 to 3 are found infavour of complainant and order passed accordingly.

             In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation together with Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.                         

                                               Sd/-                  Sd/-           Sd/-

President          Member           Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 to A3. Copy of the lawyer notice, AD card and postal receipts.

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil    /forwarded by order/

     Senior Superintendent