KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
FIRST APPEAL 19/12
JUDGMENT DATED:19..9..2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Artist Sasi, : APPELLANT
Sasikala Arts,
Near Haridas Colony,
Thavakkara, Kannur 670 002
Vs.
1. Station Master, : RESPONDENTS
Kannur Railway Station,
Kannur.
2. Sheji,
Booking Clerk,
Kannur Railway Station, Kannur.
(By Adv.S.Renganathan)
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant was the complainant in CC.133/11 in the CDRF, Kannur. His grievance was that on 9.3.11 he went to the Kannur railway station ticket counter at 10.30am in order to purchase ticket for journey from Kannur to Mahi. When his turn arrived he offered Rs.5/- in different denominations of coins of Rs.2+2+50paise+25paise+25paise to the lady clerk for giving the ticket. Immediately when the coin was tendered the 2nd opposite party pushed the coins aside and told him that those coins were not valid tender and she would not accept the same. She explained that no one takes those coins when tendered in return. The complainant explained that that was none of his concern and the clerk insisted that she would not accept it. When the complainant insisted that he had offered valid coins she jumped and stood up and told him to go away. When the complainant understood that the protest was regarding the 25paise coins he told her that there was facility for exchanging 25paise coins from the bank till 29th june 2011. Then she became aggressive and refused to issue ticket. When the complainant approached the station master the complainant was advised to take ticket and go for the time being as it was time for arrival of the train. He promised to take necessary action after enquiry. There upon the complainant returned to the counter and obtained ticket by offering a 100 rupee note. He gave the same coins refused to be taken by the clerk to obtain the return journey ticket from Mahi to Kannur. When he enquired the matter with the Assistant station master, Kannur he gave no satisfactory answer. There upon the complainant met the station master on duty and lodged complaint in the complaint book. Station master told the complainant that he did not know the name of the clerk. At last when insisted the name of the 2nd opposite party was given. Since the complainant was insulted before the public he is entitled for compensation for deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite parties filed joint version and contended that the allegation that the complainant tendered coins of Rs.2+2+ 50paise+25paise+25paise to the 2nd opposite party was false. The complainant came to the counter on 9.3.11 with handful of 25paise coins and demanded a ticket to Mahi in the Mangalore Coimbatore passenger train. At that time there was heavy rush in the counter. The 2nd opposite party very politely told the complainant that there was no time to count the coins and more over nobody was accepting 25 paise coins back as change and the same can be exchanged only through banks upto 30.6.11. There were also more passengers to be cleared. At that time the complainant abused the 2nd opposite party and threw a 100 rupee note and demanded ticket to Mahe. The 2nd opposite party then returned the 25 paisa coins and issued ticket with balance for Rs.100/-. The rightful service to the passenger had not been denied. The complainant went to the station master and asked whether those coins could be accepted or not. He tried to contact the booking clerk but the phone was engaged. The station master told him that he would enquire the matter. There after the complainant made enquiry whether any action had been taken against the 2nd opposite party or not. The station master explained the situation to the complainant but he was dissatisfied with the explanation and wanted to record his complaint in the complaint book. When he asked the name of the booking clerk it was given. The complaint is filed without any basis and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the railways.
3. Before the CDRF, Kannur the complainant gave oral evidence as PW1 Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on his side. The opposite parties gave oral evidence as DWs 1 and 2. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side.
4. The Forum was of the view that the incident was of an accidental occurrence. Hence it was found unnecessary to award compensation to the complainant and accordingly dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal by the aggrieved complainant. The only question that arises for decision is whether deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties can be made out from the circumstances available in evidence.
5. It is an admitted case that on 9.3.11 at about 10.30am the complainant went to the Kannur railway station ticket counter and wanted to purchase ticket for journey from Kannur to Mahe. It is his case that he offered the value of ticket in coins of different denominations of Rs.2+2+50paise+25paise +25paise. The 2nd opposite party was in the booking counter. But according to the opposite parties a handful of 25 paisa coins were offered. It means that 20 coins of paisa 25 were offered. In this regard on the whole, I am inclined to believe the case of the complainant. Unless there is special circumstance no one will bother to take so many coins during travel and purposefully tender it for ticket. It is a common case that no particular enmity existed between the complainant and the opposite parties. The opposite parties seem to put forward such a case to urge that it was practically impossible to count the coins at that time when there was rush for ticket. But that is not the concern of a passenger. During peak time it is the duty of the railways to open more counters to cater to the needs of the travelling public. There is no dispute that the 2nd opposite party refused to accept the 25 paisa coins. The reason appears to be that at that time Ext.A7 notification was already issued by the Government of India withdrawing coins of denomination of 25 paisa with effect from June 30, 2007 onwards. But the coins could be exchanged at the various branches of the banks specified. The explanation by the opposite parties is that if offered in return as change no one was accepting 25 paisa coins. But the Railways is part of the government and the coins would go directly into the treasury of the government and ultimately to the Reserve Bank. If that be so the reason stated is not sufficient to refuse to accept 25 paisa coins that remained as valid tender when it was offered on 9.3.2011. The Forum observed that deficiency in service cannot be measured mechanically ignoring the ground reality of common life. But it is also a ground reality that often public get arrogant and humiliating treatment from the government servants. It should be the concern of those in power as well to treat the public with dignity to promote peaceful coexistence. The Forum also viewed the incident as of accidental occurrence. Merely because of the fact that most citizens suffer humiliation by public servants in silence such an incident cannot be characterised as of accidental occurrence. As held already, in all probability, tender of coins of denomination of Rs.2+2+50paise+25paise+25paise was made as alleged by the complainant and not in 25 paisa coins as claimed by the opposite parties. The tender was made at the time when 25 paisa coins remained as valid tender. Then the mere refusal to accept the same was deficiency in service on the part of the railways. It follows that the CDRF, Kannur erred in dismissing the complaint. Regarding quantum of compensation it need not be punitive. As such Rs.3000/- can be awarded to the complainant.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The order of the CDRF, Kannur in CC.133/2011 dated 22.12.11 is set aside. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed, jointly and severally to pay as compensation Rs.3000/- to the complainant within one month. The parties are directed to bear their costs in the appeal.
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ps
