DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR PRESENT:- Sri S.Chinnaiah, B.A., B.L., President Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Lady Member Thursday, the 31st day of July, 2008 C.C.No.142/2007 Between: N.Prabhakar Naidu S/o Late N.Venkateswarulu D.No.12-2-770, Ashoknagar Anantapur. … Complainant Vs. The Senior Divisional Manager, South Central Railways Guntakal Anantapur District. …. Opposite Party This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri J.Chittaranjan, advocate for the complainant and Sri K.Lakshmanchar, Advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following: ORDER (Per Sri S.Chinnaiah, Hon’ble President) 1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,112/-with interest @ 24% p.a. from 12-08-2007, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and award Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 2. The contents of the complaint in brief is that the complainant travelled alongwith his mentally retarded son by name N.Naga Rajesh in train No.2627 from Anantapur to Ahmednagar vide PNR No.450-2626766 – Ticket bearing No.15092860 on 11-08-2007 boarded at Anantapur, by having concession fare as per the rules of the Railways as there is 75% concession for the mentally retarded person and 50% for the attendant and accordingly the complainant got reserved the seats. He produced a copy of Medical Certificate issued by the Govt. General Hospital at the time of purchase of concessional ticket as per the rules on the certificate. But one T.T.E. examined the journey-cum-reservation ticket and asked the complainant to produce the certificate of mentally retarded person. Accordingly, the complainant produced the certificate and even then the concerned T.T.E. did not satisfy and purposely demanded some money by taking advantage of non-local person, where he checked the complainant and his son at Sholapur. Then, the complainant rejected giving money saying that the journey-cum-reservation ticket was purchased as per rules. But the concerned T.T.E. purposely imposed fine of Rs.1,112/- vide excess fare ticket No.F-306703 dt.12-08-2007 mentioning the cause that the complainant was travelling without holding any proof with escort and hence charged. It is further stated that the excess fare ticket was paid under protest though he is not liable to pay the excess fare ticket amount. Even in the case of senior citizens, if fail to produce the proof, only the difference fare will be collected and no fine will be imposed. But in this case though the Mentally Retarded Certificate was produced by the complainant, T.T.E. purposely imposed the fine and this is nothing but negligence in manner and deficiency of service and caused mental agony to the complainant. He got issued legal notice dt.28-08-2007 calling upon the opposite party as there is vicarious liability on him for Rs.1,112/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from 12-08-2007. Thus, the case of the complainant. 3. The opposite party filed counter opposing the complaint contents contending that it is a fact that the complainant N.Prabhakar Naidu along-with his son N.Naga Rakesh travelled in Train No.2627 from Anantapur to Ahmednagar on 11-08-2007 vide ticket No.15092860. It is further stated that it is a fact that the complainant and his son purchased a ticket on mentally retarded concession and were traveling from Anantapur to Ahmednagar. It is submitted that Sri R.N.Diwan, Hd.T.T.E. (open details squad) had worked from Sholapur to Dound on 11-02-2007. The said T.T.E. checked the complainant ticket and asked him to produce Mentally Retarded Certificate or any other document to establish authentication. It is further submitted that the allegation made in the complaint that the T.T.E. purposely demanded some money taking advantage of the situation though the complainant produced the certificate of mentally retarded person is totally false. It is incorrect to state that the concerned T.T.E. purposely imposed fine of Rs.1,112/-. It is further stated that admittedly it was mentioned in the E.F.T. No.306703 by mentioning that the complainant was travelling without holding any proof with escort. The complainant has paid the amount without any hesitation and it was not endorsed on the E.F.T. that he paid under protest. The T.T.E. collected the excess fare amount as per existing rules only. It is further stated that there is no deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. The amount claimed under different heads is highly untenable and the opposite party is not at all liable for the same. It is submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the entire cause of action took place at Sholapur. The claim of the complainant is unjust and the complaint is filed suppressing the material facts and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, to dismiss the complaint with costs. 4. Heard arguments both sides. 5. The point that arises for consideration herein is: Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ? 6. Ex.A1 to A7 are marked for the complainant and no documents are marked for the opposite party. Ex.A1 is original Journey-cum-Reservation Ticket No.15092860 and PNR No.450-2626766 dt.11-08-2007. Ex.A2 is original Excess Fare Ticket No.F-306703 dt.12-08-2007. Ex.A3 is attested copy of Mentally Retarded Certificate of N.Naga Rajesh. Ex.A4 is original letter of Sri Anantha Venkatarami Reddy, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), Anantapur to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways, Guntakal. Ex.A5 is office copy of legal notice dt.28-08-2007. Ex.A6 is original EMS Speed Post-Postal Receipt No.EN-687023349 dt.28-08-2007. Ex.A7 is acknowledgement card served on the opposite party. We have gone through the contents of the complaint, counter, chief affidavit, cross-affidavit, documents and the relevant material available on record. 7. POINT:- The complainant N.Prabhakar Naidu is the father of N.Naga Rajesh. The said Naga Rajesh is mentally retarded person. The fact that Naga Rajesh is mentally retarded, is evidenced by Ex.A3 i.e. attested copy of Mentally Retarded Certificate issued by team of doctors, Government General Hospital, Anantapur. The complainant alongwith his mentally retarded son travelled in Train No.2627 from Anantapur to Ahmednagar on 11-08-2007 vide ticket No.15092860. Ex.A1 is the original Journey-cum-Reservation Ticket. It is a fact that the opposite party, who is the Senior Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal both in his chief affidavit and counter stated that it is a fact that the complainant and his son purchased ticket on mentally retarded concession and were travelling from Anantapur to Ahmednagar. Hence, there is no dispute that Naga Rajesh, who is son of the complainant and mentally retarded person. On the other hand, it is also not in dispute that the complainant being father of mentally retarded person Naga Rajesh was attending on him during the journey. 8. The complainant both in his complaint and chief affidavit says that he has purchased ticket under Ex.A1 having concession fare as per the rules of the Railways as there is 75% concession for the mentally retarded person and 50% for the attendant and accordingly he got reserved the seats. According to him, he produced copy of the Medical Certificate issued by the Govt.General Hospital, Anantapur under Ex.A3 at the time of purchase of the concessional ticket as per the rules on the certificate. He says that while himself and his son were travelling, one T.T.E. examined the Journey-cum-Reservation Ticket and asked him to produce the certificate of mentally retarded person. Accordingly, he produced a certificate. But the T.T.E. did not satisfy and purposely demanded some money by taking advantage of non-local person where he checked him and his son at Sholapur. He says that when he refused to give money saying that the Journey-cum-Reservation Ticket was purchased as per rules. But T.T.E. purposely imposed fine of Rs.1,112/- vide Excess Fare Ticket No.306703 on 12-08-2007 mentioning the cause that he was travelling without holding any proof with escort and hence charged. The fact of imposing of Rs.1,112/- is evidenced under Ex.A2. He further says that he paid the excess fare ticket amount under protest though he is not liable to pay the excess fare ticket amount. According to him, even in the case of senior citizen, if fail to produce the proof, only the difference fare will be collected and no fine will be imposed. According to him, T.T.E. purposely imposed fine even though he produced Ex.A3 Mentally Retarded Certificate. The act of T.T.E. in imposing fine is in negligent manner and deficiency of service and he also caused mental agony to the complainant. He issued legal notice under Ex.A5 on 28-08-2007 claiming Rs.1,112/- with interest @ 24% p.a. against the opposite party as there is vicarious liability on him. 9. On the other hand, the opposite party both in his counter and chief affidavit states that Sri R.N.Diwan, Head T.T.E. (Open details squad) had worked from Sholapur to Dound on 11-02-2007. He further states that the said T.T.E. checked the complainant and asked him to produce Mentally Retarded Certificate or any other document to establish authentication. The opposite party is denying the version of the complainant that the T.T.E. demanded some money and did not heed the complainant though he produced the certificate of mentally retarded person. He denied that T.T.E. purposely demanded the complainant some money taking advantage of the situation though the complainant produced the certificate of mentally retarded person. He further denied that the T.T.E. purposely imposed fine of Rs.1,112/-. He says that admittedly it was mentioned under Ex.A2 that the complainant was travelling without holding any proof with escort. The complainant has paid the amount without any hesitation and it was not endorsed under Ex.A2 Excess Fare Ticket that he paid the amount of Rs.1,112/- under protest. T.T.E. collected excess fare amount as per existing rules only and there is no deficiency in service on his part. 10. After going through the contentions and chief affidavits on both sides, we are satisfied that we have to necessarily reject the contention of the opposite party. In this case, it is a fact that the son of the complainant Naga Rajesh is mentally retarded person as evidenced by Ex.A3. They were travelling from Anantapur to Ahmadnagar having purchased the concessional Journey-cum-Reservation Ticket under Ex.A1. Hence, it is not in dispute that the complainant and his son were travelling from Anantapur to Ahmadnagar; while they were travelling and when they reached Sholapur, one T.T.E. by name Sri R.N.Diwan, who worked as T.T.E. at that time demanded to produce Mentally Retarded Certificate and accordingly the complainant produced the same. Now, it is the staunch contention of the opposite party that as the complainant and his son were travelling without any authenticated certificate that Naga Rajesh was mentally retarded person, he imposed fine of Rs.1,112/- under Ex.A2. The very contention of the opposite party falls to the ground for the reason that it can not be said that the complainant has not produced the Mentally Retarded Certificate of his son. It is to be noted that when the complainant being father of the mentally retarded person was attending on him during the journey and when they have purchased the ticket on concessional rate, it is not in dispute and it can not be stated that the complainant was travelling without possessing Mentally Retarded Certificate of his son. It is to be noted that the complainant was escorting his mentally retarded son and that the T.T.E. even though the complainant produced the certificate, he demanded to pay the money. Hence, under the circumstances prevailed in this case, under which condition the complainant and his mentally retarded son were travelling, certainly goes to show that the complainant was in helpless condition and he paid fine amount of Rs.1,112/- as demanded by T.T.E., who worked at that time. It is very difficult to accept the contention of the opposite party that the complainant paid the amount under Ex.A2 without any hesitation. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party that if at all the complainant has paid the amount under protest, he would have mentioned the same in Ex.A2, can not be accepted, for the reason that the circumstances prevailed at that time was pressing in nature. It is also contended for the opposite party that if at all the T.T.E. demanded the complainant to pay some money for his gain; the complainant has not reported the same to anybody or to Police and this itself falsifies the case of the complainant. The contention of the opposite party on this aspect can not be accepted for the reason that the complainant being father of the mentally retarded son was escorting him and that he is totally a stranger at the place where T.T.E. checked him and if that is so, there will be no scope for him to complain against T.T.E. when he demanded to pay fine amount towards excess fare, leaving his mentally retarded son alone. Hence, under the circumstances, we see that no substance in the contention of the opposite party. 11. The staunch contention of the opposite party is that there is clear instruction under Ex.A3 that the original certificate will have to be produced for inspection at the time of purchase of concessional ticket and during the journey if demanded. The complainant though there is clear instruction not produced the certificate when T.T.E. inspected the ticket and hence T.T.E. has rightly collected excess fare ticket amount under Ex.A2. It is no doubt true that as seen under Ex.A3, there is clear instruction to produce Mentally Retarded Certificate when demanded during journey. The complainant says that though he has produced the certificate when T.T.E. demanded, he has imposed excess fare ticket (E.F.T.). It is to be remembered that there is also a clause under Ex.A3 that original certificate will have to be produced for inspection at the time of purchasing of concessional ticket. In this case, the complainant has purchased the concessional ticket under Ex.A1, which is not in dispute. On the other hand, it is to be seen that the complainant is a retired Bank employee, who worked as Branch Manager in Andhra Bank, was travelling having sufficient proof that his son was mentally retarded person and that in our opinion, the act of T.T.E. in imposing fine of Rs.1112/- under Ex.A2 terms as negligence on his part . It is to be stated that even if the complainant and his son were travelling without proof, T.T.E. must have collected the difference of journey fare. When once the complainant and his son were travelling by purchasing Journey-cum-Reservation Ticket on concessional rate as per rules, the T.T.E. must have considered the situation even if it is taken that the complainant has not produced sufficient proof. 12. It is also contended for the opposite party that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the T.T.E. checked the ticket at Sholapur. The very contention of the opposite party on this aspect is certainly falls to the ground for the reason that the complainant has purchased the ticket under Ex.A1 at Anantapur and when they have started their journey from Anantapur to go to Ahmadnagar and if that is so, certainly the cause of action arose at Anantapur and as such this Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, taking the prevailing circumstances as discussed supra, we are of the opinion that the T.T.E., who worked at the time of checking and collected fine of Rs.1,112/- under Ex.A2 from the complainant is not sustainable and that the act of the T.T.E. is certainly terms as negligence and there is every deficiency of service on his part. 13. It is also contended for the opposite party that the complainant issued legal notice under Ex.A5 on 28-08-2007 whereas the T.T.E. collected E.F.T. (Excess fare ticket) under Ex.A2 on 12-08-2007 and that he has not given explanation for the delay in giving notice after 16 days. The contention of the opposite party on this aspect is not convincing for the reason that the complainant travelled alongwith his mentally retarded son from Anantapur to Ahmadnagar and came back and gave legal notice on 28-08-2007. It is to be remembered that he gave legal notice within a period of 16 days, which is not abnormal delay. On the other hand, when the complainant is proceeding against the Senior Officer i.e. Senior Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, he has to think over the pros and cons before issuing legal notice and under the circumstances he gave notice on 28-08-2007, which is not abnormal delay. On the other hand, simply because he gave notice after 16 days, on that ground, it can not be said that he issued a legal notice after due consultations and deliberations in order to have unlawful gain that too for a meager sum of Rs.1,112/- from the opposite party, who is a Senior Divisional Manager, South Central Railways. Hence, under the circumstance prevailed herein, we are of the opinion that the action of the T.T.E., who worked on 12-08-2007 is negligent and there is every deficiency on his part while collecting the E.F.T. amount (Excess fare ticket) under Ex.A2 and as such the complainant is entitled to claim the same with interest @ 9% p.a. The complainant must have suffered mental agony for the reasons prevailed in this case and as such he is also entitled for a sum of Rs.500/- towards mental agony. 14. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,112/- (Rupees one thousand one hundred and twelve only) towards Excess Fare Ticket amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from 12-08-2007 till the date of payment and he is also further directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards mental agony and Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) towards costs of the complaint. This order shall be complied with, within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 31st day of July, 2008. Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT: NIL OPPOSITE PARTY: NIL EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT Ex.A1 - Original Journey-cum-Reservation Ticket No.15092860 and PNR No.450-2626766 dt.11-08-2007. Ex.A2 - Original Excess Fare Ticket No.F-306703 dt.12-08-2007. Ex.A3 - Attested copy of Mentally Retarded Certificate of N.Naga Rajesh. Ex.A4 - Original letter of Sri Anantha Venkatarami Reddy, Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), Anantapur addressed to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal. Ex.A5 - Office copy of legal notice dt.28-08-2007. Ex.A6 - Original EMS Speed Post-Postal Receipt No.EN-687023349 dt.28-08-2007. Ex.A7 - Acknowledgement card served on the opposite party. EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY - NIL – Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR Typed by JPNN
......................Smt.S.Lalitha
......................Sri S.Chinnaiah | | 
