D.O.F:14/06/2022
D.O.O:12/03/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.122/2022
Dated this, the 12th day of March 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Rajendran M., aged 57 years,
Mavinkallu,
Post – Kundamkuzhy,
Kasaragod – 671541.
(Adv: T. C. Narayanan) : Complainant
And
- The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway,
Thycaud,
Thiruvananthapuram, 695014.
- The Station Master,
Trivandrum Central Railway station,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(Adv: K. Karunakaran Nambiar, for OP 1 & 2) : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The facts of the case is that the complainant is a retired higher secondary school teacher. On 10/06/2022, the complainant travelled in Maveli Express, train No. 16604 from Trivandrum to Kasaragod to know his pension status. The ticket was booked online through IRCTC e-ticketing service. The complainant arrived at Trivandrum railway station before the scheduled departure time and enquired the PNR status from the consigned information center. It showed that his berth No. 32 in second AC was confirmed. The complainant boarded the train in coach No.19. The ticket examiner approached the complainant and asked for ticket. The complainant handed over the ticket and identity card for verification. The examiner told that his ticket was not confirmed and he would be treated as a trespasser and harassed him before the other passengers and forced him to leave the train. The said ticket examiner forced the complainant to pay fine plus other charges of Rs. 485/- and he issued receipt No. 316835 dated 10/06/2022. The complainant begged the ticket examiner to give his confirmed berth and to look into the chart properly. But the said ticket examiner declined the request and forced him to leave the train without any valid reasons. The opposite parties rejected his request without assigning any reasons what so ever. But the opposite parties unlawfully caused huge loss and great mental pain and agony to him. The complainant alleges that the service which is made available to him are faulty with imperfection and short coming and inadequate quality nature and manner of performance. The acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties, due to which the complainant had undergone severe mental agony and monitory loss. The complainant assesses his damages at Rs. 20,000/- with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- considering the miseries faced by him.
The opposite party filed version according to them, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) is a Mini Ratna Central Public Sector Enterprise under the Ministry of Railways, Government of India. The complainant is well aware about the role of IRCTC in ticket booking and he purposefully not made them party array. Hence this complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party. The TTE waited for the vacant berths up to Ernakulam Junction and then allotted RAC passengers from the same chart later. The certified copy of the chart of that particular coach of the train is produced herewith. It shows that berth No. 32 allotted to RAC 23 passenger travel from Ernakulam Junction to Mangalore Central. Since the train was running at night timing and there was no vacant berth available, as so many RAC passengers were waiting for berths, the TTE with an intention to make the passenger travel in the same train as per Railway Rules issued an EFT (Excess Fair Ticket) to the approached passenger. While booking itself, certain basic points are brought to the notice of the passengers as instructions for their attention by IRCTC. It is clear that, the petitioner was aware of the fact that his name will be available in A1 coach of train No. 16604 Express. Otherwise, it will be dropped after the charting. The status of the ticket booked to travel from Trivandrum Central to Kasaragod is shown as WL 6 and 7. This was finalized as confirmed berth No. 32 up on charting. Railway is giving wide publicity to contact telephone No. 139 for on board passenger amenity complaints by frequent announcements. The complainant having failed to fulfill his obligation has committed an error by hiding the facts that he possessed a valid e-ticket and the consequences followed. The complainant cannot claim for any deficiency in service by the opposite party for the simple reason of wrongdoer cannot seek remedy under the Act. There is no misbehavior from any of the opposite party against the complainant. The complainant is driven by undue monetary intentions and if such complaints are entertained, it would drain the National Exchequer in no time. Railways cannot be blamed and penalized without any fault of them. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of these opposite parties. The complaint is purely an abuse of process of law. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief sought for.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents produced are marked as A1 and A2. The complainant was cross examined as PW1. The opposite party filed chief affidavit and cross examined by the complainant as DW1. Ext. B1 and B2 marked. Ext. B1 is the certified copy of the chart of coach No.A1 of train No. 16604. Ext. B2 is the certified copy of the reservation chart.
The main questions raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Railways in penalizing the complaint?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
All questions can be discussed together. The grievance of the complainant is that, even after purchasing a valid e- ticket before journey, he was penalized and insulted by the TTE in front of other passengers on 10/06/2022. The illegal act of opposite party’s ticket examiner caused severe mental agony and monitory loss to the complainant. So, he is seeking a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- with cost from opposite party for damages. The complainant has produced Ext.A1 ticket dated 10/06/2022 in Maveli Express (Train No. 16604) to prove that he was not a trespasser in the train. Ext.A2 is the excess fair ticket dated 10/06/2022 for an amount of Rs. 485/- to prove that his allegation against the TTE is true. The complainant deposed before the Commission that, he booked the ticket through IRCTC, it is only an agency to book the ticket. It is not a direct institution of Railway. While perusing the deposition of the complainant, berth No. 32 is allotted to him in A1 coach of the train Maveli Express, but he boarded into second AC of the afore mentioned train. The berth No.32 was vacant till the train reaches at Ernakulam. The complainant could not lodge a complaint against railway for non-availability of seat as he suppressed his confirmed ticket.
The contention raised by opposite party is that IRCTC is not made a party in this case. Hence the complaint is non-joinder of necessary party. Even though ticket is booked through IRCTC the grievance of the complaint is against the TTE who issued an Excess Fair Ticket to him. The complainant’s ticket confirmed and berth No.32 is allotted to him in A1 coach. The complainant mistakenly entered into second AC and not made any effort to find out his berth. If the ticket is shown to the TTE, he would have helped him to find out his berth.
The complainant deposed before the Commission that,
“Rm³ I-b-td-n-bn-cp¶-Xv A1 tIm-¨n-em-Wv F-¶p ]-d-ªm second AC bn-em-Wv I-b-dn-b-Xv. second AC bn-em-Wv I-b-dn-b-sX-¶v ]-cm-Xn-bn ]-d-bm-¯-Xn {]-tXy-In-¨v Im-c-W-anÃ. s{S-bn³ ]p-d-s¸-Sp-¶ k-ab-¯v A-tem-«v sN-bv-X Iw-]mÀ-«v-saânepw ko-än-ep-aà I-b-dnb-Xv F-¶p ]-d-ªm i-cn-bÃ. Ext.A1 t\m-¡n-bm Sn-¡-äv confirmation status Im-WnÃ. F-sâ confirm B-b berth Rm³ ]-d-ªp sIm-Sp-¯n-«nà F-¶p ]-d-ªm i-cn-bÃ. A1 se 32 berth F-d-Wm-Ip-fw h-sc H-gn-ªp In-S-¡p-I-bm-bn-cp-¶p F-¶p ]-d-ªm i-cn-bÃ. A1 tIm-¨n-sâ NmÀ-«n berth No. 23 F-d-Wm-Ip-fw ap-X aw-K-em-]p-cw hsc RAC A-tem-«v sN-bv-X-Xm-bn Im-Wp-sa-¶p ]-d-ªm i-cn-bÃ. ko-äv In-«m-¯ Imcyw ]d-ªv sdbnÂth A-tXm-dn-än-¡v ]-cm-Xn \Â-Im-Xn-cn-¡m³ {]-tXy-In-¨v Im-c-W-anÃ. A-t¸m-gs¯ a-t\m-\n-e-bn A-Xv tXm-¶n-bnÃ. F-\n-¡v berth No. 32 B-Wv allot sN-bv-X-sX¶pw A-Xv ad-¨p sh-¨Xp-sIm-m-Wv {]-bm-k-ap-m-b-sX-¶pw TTE bp-sS `mK-¯v hogv-N CÃm-sb¶pw ]-d-ªm i-cn-bÃ. TTE bp-sS `mK-¯v hogv-N CÃm-sb¶pw ]-d-ªm i-cn-bÃ, A-t±-l-¯n-sâ s]-cp-am-äw hf-sc harass sN-¿p-¶ hn-[-¯n-em-bn-cp-¶p. sd-bnÂ-th-bp-sS `mK-¯p \n-¶pw TTE bp-sS `m-K-¯p-\n¶pw ho-gv-N-bp-m-bnÃm-sb-¶p ]-d-ªm i-cn-bÃ.”
While evaluating the facts and evidences produced before the Commission, we holds that no material evidence is produced before the Commission to prove deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant mistakenly entered into a compartment instead of finding out his allotted berth and compartment. The complainant suppressed his confirmed ticket and earned an EFT is the mistake on the part of the complainant. If the confirmed ticket is shown to the TTE, EFT wouldn’t have issued to him. The opposite party cannot be penalized for the mistake on the part of the complainant. There is no merit in the complaint. Hence, complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Ticket dated 10/06/2022
A2 – Excess Fair Ticket dated 10/06/2022
B1 – Certified copy of the chart of coach No.A1 of train No: 16604.
B2 – Certified copy of the reservation chart
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – M. Rajendran Nair
DW1 – V. Satheesan
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
