D.o.F:22/5/06D.o.O:5/11/08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.NO.62/06 Dated this, the 5th day of November 2008 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENTSMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI: MEMBER K.Sureshan, Secretary, Folkland, : Complainant Elambachi Po,Kasaragod. 1. The Station Master, Railway Station,Kanhangad Po.Kanhangad. 2. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, : Opposite parties Railway Divisional Office,Olavakkod, Palakkad. 3. The Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi. ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT Complainant K Sureshan filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in refusing to him and to his team of 20 persons the rail travel concession granted on the ground that, the name of the one person whose name is included in the concessional order in seen altered. 2. Sureshan is the Secretary Folkland International Center for Folklore and Culture, a non-governmental organization for promoting folk and culture. Complainant and his crew were invited to perform ‘Poorakkali ‘ at Thiruvananthapuram on 20/11/05. As usual they requested the Secretary, Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy governmental cultural agency to issue a certificate for enabling 20 artistes for rail travel concession for their journey from Kanhangad to Thiruvananthapuram and back. The Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Acadamy had issued a certificate to the 2nd opposite party, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager and accordingly the 2nd opposite party has issued a concession order addressing the first opposite party, the Station Master,Railway station Kanhangad. But on the date of journey ie, on 19/11/05 the first opposite party refused to accept the concession order issued by second opposite party on the ground that one name in the printed list of artistes found struck off and another name inserted instead. According to complainant, the correction was made even prior to submitting the list of artistes before the Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy and the same list is produced for booking the tickets. Since the complainant and his crew were running short of money, they requested the Ist opposite party to issue tickets for 19 artistes whose names are unaltered in the list. But it was refused. As a result complainant was forced to avail tickets with full rate for all artistes. He took tickets for only 17 artistes and constrained to send back 3 expert artistes. Had the concession been granted , then the complainant and his team of artistes would have get a reduction of 75% of the actual ticket charge. Since the full rate of ticket for journey was not anticipated, the complainant and his troupe suffered very much financial stringencies through out the journey. Moreover, the expenses met by complainant for his to and fro journey to Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy and to the office of the Railway divisional Office for getting the railway ticket concession order also became futile. Further the dearth in the number of artiste affected the performance of the item and the artistes faced starvation due to lack of money. According to complainant all these were caused due to the refusal of first opposite party to grant tickets at concessional rate. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version. According to opposite parties , the dispute is not a consumer dispute and the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of parties since the Union of India or the General Manager is not impleaded as necessary parties and Secretary Railway Board is made as a party. On merits it is the case of opposite parties that the concession order dtd.8/11/05 issued from the office of the 2nd opposite party for 20 artistes to travel from Kanhangad to Thiruvananthaouram as per request of Secretary, Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy Trissur was found altered and the name of 19th person contained in the list was struck off and a new name was seen inserted and the said correction was not countersigned. Hence the party was advised to get the corrected list countersigned by the Secretary, Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy , Trissur before the submission of the concession order for exchange at the station and since one of the artistes name seen corrected and it was not countersigned or authenticated, the ticket issuing clerk of Kanhangad railway station refused to issue tickets at 75% concessional rate. Complainant did not represent to issue tickets for 19 persons except the disputed one. The rejection of the concession order was as per the rules of the railway authority. Hence opposite parties prays for dismissal of complaint. 4. Complainant Sureshan filed affidavit and he was cross examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A9 marked. On the side of Ist opposite party, Sivendra Abu, the ticket issueing clerk of Kanhnagad railway station filed affidavit and faced cross examination as DW1 and Ext.B1 marked. Both sides were heard and the documents perused carefully. 5. The moot question to be answered in this complaint is whether the denial of issuing tickets at concessional rate amounts to deficiency in service or not? 6. According to counsel for opposite parties, the refusal of tickets at concessional fare was necessitated since the list of artistes produced before Ist opposite party was found corrected and the correction was not countersigned by the certifying authority ie, Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy who is the authority to countersign the alteration made as per the commercial manual of Indian Railway. But the case of complainant that at the time of submitting the list of artistes along with the request of the certifying authority ie secretary, Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy before the 2nd opposite party for availing concessional order, the correction was made and hence the correction should have been attested by the 2nd opposite party who is the issuing authority of the concessional order. In support of this contention counsel for complainant invited our attention to Ext.A4 & Ext.A8. Both are the copies of list of 20 artistes submitted to avail rail travel concessional order. Ext.A4 produced by the complainant and Ext.A8 is another copy of Ext.A4 produced by opposite party and marked through complainant during cross examimnation. According to opposite parties, Ext.A8 is the copy of the list of artistes submitted before 2nd opposite party for concessional order. Both in Exts.A4 & A8 same correction is seen made. So the case of the complainant that the correction was made before the submission of list before 2nd opposite party is appears to be true. 7. According to the opposite parties, the correction if any made in the list shall be countersigned by the certifying authority ie, Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy upon whose certificate the tickets are issued at concessional rates. 8. The counsel for opposite parties produced Ext.B1, the copy of the relevant rule of the commercial Manual. The rule 438 of the manual deals with the concessional orders. Rule 438 provides as under: Concession orders-(a) Railway administrations allow certain concession in rail fares. The persons eligible for, the conditions applicable to, and the authority competent to grant, each kind of concession and the fares chargeable are notified in the I.R.C A Coaching Tariff. Unless otherwise authorized by the railway administration, ordinary tickets for the class required should be issued in exchange for the concession orders. (b) Station Masters and Booking Clerks should scrutinize concession orders carefully before exchanging them for tickets and specifically see that- (i) the documents bear the stamp of the issuing office (ii) these are signed in the proper places (iii) alterations, if permissible, are duly attested by the issuing office (iv) these are presented within period of availability and (v) these are complete in every respect Reduced fares will not be passed by the Traffic Accounts Office in case any of the above conditions are not fulfilled Therefore as per this rule it is clear that the alteration are to be duly attested by the issuing office of the concessional orders. Here second opposite party is the concession order issuing office. Hence it was the responsibility of 2nd opposite party to countersign the alteration or correction. So the contention of opposite parties that it was the certifying authority ie, Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy has to attest the correction is not sustainable. Had the complainant been instructed to get the attestation of the certifying authority before issuing a concession order, then he should have get an opportunity to rectify the defects. But no such instruction was given and opposite party No.2 straight away issued the concessional order without authenticating the correction as envisaged in the Commercial Manual which became the root cause for the dispute. Therefore, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party who acted as per the commercial manual could have at least issued tickets at least to 19 persons whose names found unaltered in the concessional order. His contention that the complainant took an adamant attitude that if concession is denied to one person , then nobody wants to travel as per concessional order is not believable since due to shortage of fund the complainant sent back three artistes . Therefore, we hold that opposite parties committed grave deficiency in their service rendered to complainant and his team. 9. Reliefs and costs: No doubt the complainant and his Troup might have suffered due to the financial stringency for unexpectedly spending much amount for taking ordinary tickets instead of tickets at concessional rates. The fact of reducing the members of his crew from 20 to 17 itself shows that the troupe might have suffered financial crisis. The ordinary ticket charge for 17 persons per to and fro journey will be 17x129+ 17x128=4369(2193+2176) at that time. But had they been given concession then they could have save 75% of the fare. The said savings would be Rs.3090/- approximately. The opposite parties are liable to refund the said amount. Of course, there is no doubt that due to unexpected denial of benefits as per the travel concession order they have undergone much sufferings. In the affidavit complainant stated that throughout the journey they have suffered financial , mental problems and due to the shortage of 3 members they could not perform in the show in full swing. Further, they were unnecessarily travelled to Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Academy Trissur and to the office of OP.NO.2 at Palakkad for getting the rail travel concession order which ultimately yielded no benefit. Definitely, complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental sufferings. The concept and meaning of the word compensation which has been widened to such an extent by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case after case and in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbirsingh (2004) 5 SCC 65 that it encompasses in its fold each and every element of suffering due to wrongful act or deficiency in service by the service provider a mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering, actual loss or expected loss or other sufferings suffered by them. We further extend this concept that any service provider or trader who forces a consumer to seek a remedy or redressal by approaching the District Forum or any other legal remedy, which all the more adds insult to injury and fuel to the fire causes further harassment and mental agony to the consumer, as now a days these remedies are becoming costlier day by day and going beyond the reach of common man. This fact should always kept in mind by the service providers and traders who have got their own legal departments and machineries for fighting in the law courts by engaging standing counsels. 10. As a result of the adament and arrogant attitude of opposite parties, 17 persons suffered throughout their to and fro journey from Kanhangad to Trivandrum and in return .It affected their item performance also. Three of the artistes suffered since they were sent back at the beginning of journey itself who with much expectation started their journey for their stage performance. Complainant is a representative of them even though the complaint is filed not in a representative capacity. Complainant is claimed only Rs.10,000/- towards the mental agony and pain suffered. We feels the said amount is very reasonable. Therefore, we allow the complaint and the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.3090/- to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance of this order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1 &A2 series -Train ticketsA3-8/11/05-request for concession order A4-list of members A5-23/11/05-letter issued by complainant to OP.No.2A6-A3A7-8/11/05-Certificate of rail concession A8-A4 A9-Speed post receipt. B1-Copy of commercial Manual PW1-K.Sureshan-complainant DW1-Sivendra Abu-Ticket issuing clerk of OP.1 Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ Senior Superintendent
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
