The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is a permanent disabled person and needs assistance of an escort to travel in public transport and he is having a valid concession certificate issued by the competent authority.  As per concession rule of the department of railways, the permanent disabled person will get 75% travel concession for self as well as for his escort.  It is submitted that the complainant travelled from Jeypore to Muniguda in the district of Rayagada along with his escort on 19.8.2014 by rail and the railway authorities at Jeypore Rly Station after observing formalities issued ticket by mentioning AD-1 and ESC-1 and complainant paid Rs.50/- towards cost of 2 tickets but while returning from Muniguda to Jeypore on the same day, the man at the Rly ticket booking counter at Muniguda did not allow concession. When the complainant approached the Station Master (OP) he denied concession with some pretext or other and the complainant was to pay Rs.190/- towards full fare of the journey for two persons. It is further submitted that the behavior of the OP was not proper towards the complainant. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund Rs.140/- towards excess amount taken with interest and to pay Rs.50000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction to try over this dispute as no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum.  It is further contended that the matters like refund of fare, the Rly Claims Tribunal have been set up who have the exclusive jurisdiction u/s.13 & 15 and this dispute is not maintainable in the Forum.  It is further contended that the complainant has not produced the photo copy along with original concession certificate before the authorities to avail concession and the complainant has not filed any complaint through complain book either at Muniguda or at Jeypore and has filed this case to harass the OP.  The OP also contended that the complainant has failed to submit the photo copy of the concession certificate for which the concession ticket could not be issued.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the Op prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The OP filed affidavit.  Heard from the complainant and the A/R for the OP and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the complainant stated that he is a permanent disabled person and travelled from Jeypore to Muniguda by rail with his escort on 19.8.14 by availing concessional ticket for himself and for his escort.  In support of his above contentions, the complainant has filed copy of valid concession certificate issued by the competent authorities along with copy of railway ticket issued from Jeypore railway station to Muniguda station.  Perused both the documents and found that the concession certificate is valid and the railway ticket from Jeypore to Muniguda costs Rs.50/- for AD-1 and Esc-1 on 19.8.14.  The above documents clearly prove that the complainant along with his escort had performed journey by rail on 19.8.14 from Jeypore to Muniguda.  The complainant has also filed copy of return ticket from Muniguda to Jeypore for which the OP has charged Rs.190/- for two tickets on 19.8.14.

5.                     The case of the complainant is that the man at the counter of Muniguda station did not allow concession for which he approached the Station Master (OP) and the OP also did not allow concession and his behavior was not good.  The OP stated that the complainant has not produced the copy of concession certificate for which they could not allow concessional fare.  This submission of the OP does not sound good.  When the complainant availed concessional fare by showing concession certificate at Jeypore rly station on 19.8.14, it is not believable that he has not shown the said concession certificate at the Muniguda Rly station on the same day in their return journey.

6.                     The OP stated that the complainant has not lodged any complaint either at Muniguda or at Jeypore rly station.  In this case the complainant has approached the Booking Clerk for concessional ticket and when denied he approached the OP who also denied to grant concessional ticket.  Approach before OP is itself a complaint and it was the duty of OP to provide complaint book voluntarily to the complainant who is a PWD and non supply of complaint book to the complainant is a deficiency in service committed by OP.

7.                     The complainant has filed photo copy of concession certificate along with ticket issued from Jeypore Rly Station from which it was ascertained that the complainant has availed concessional ticket on 19.8.14 but it is not understood as to how the OP did not issue the concessional ticket for the complainant and his escort on the same day.  The complainant also stated that he has shown his concessional railway ticket to the OP issued on the same day from Jeypore Railway Station but the OP did not consider.  This allegation of the complainant remained unchallenged. Therefore, non issuance of concessional ticket to the complainant and his escort by OP on 19.8.14 amounts to deficiency in service.

8.                     The OP has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum.  The complainant has performed his journey from Muniguda to Jeypore and the ticket has been issued accordingly and OP provided service up to Jeypore also.  Hence cause of action arose from both the ends and this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case.  Further the OP stated that in view of Sec. 13 & 15 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the grievance of the complainant is not cognizable under C.P. Act.  It may be stated here that this case has not been filed for compensation of loss, destruction or non delivery of goods but for deficiency in service.  We have already held that the OP by not issuing concessional tickets has committed deficiency in service in spite of valid documents.  Reliance can be placed to a recent decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in a case between Union of India Vs. (Smt) Sobha Agarwal, 2013(4) CLT 25 (NC) wherein it has been held that “ The jurisdiction of Consumer Fora cannot be barred by virtue of the provisions of Sec.15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987”.  A permanent disabled person cannot negotiate properly and the OP knows it very well.

9.                     We have already held that the OP has committed deficiency in service by not issuing concessional tickets to the complainant and his escort.  For such inaction of the OP the complainant being a permanent disabled person must have suffered mental agony as well as serious physical harassment.  For the above sufferings the complainant is certainly entitled for compensation and considering the facts and circumstances we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation in favour of the complainant will be just and proper.  However, for return of excess fare, we are not inclined to go to that aspect and the complainant is advised to approach proper authorities for the said relief.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Opp. Party is directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order.