Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/60/2017

The Southern Railway, Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager & anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thendral Kumar& anr - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. K.Muthamil Raja

28 Oct 2021

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

          BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                           PRESIDENT

                     Tmt  Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                       MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.60/2017

(Against order in CC.NO.225/2013 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)

 

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2021   

 

 1.      The Southern Railway

          Rep. by its Divisional Railway Manager

Chennai Division,

Chennai – 600 003

 

2.       The Chief Commercial Manager                          M/s. K. Muthamil Raja

Southern Railway, Chennai Division                           Counsel for                

Chennai – 600 003                                      Appellants /Opposite parties

 

                                                         Vs.

1.       Thendral Kumar

 

2.       Asst. Pro (Mrs.) Saranya Thendral Kumar

No.57, Kumaran Nagar (Sevvapet Road)              M/s. G.Gopinath

Thirur & Post                                                        Counsel for

Thiruvallur TK and District- 602 025                Respondents/ Complainants

 

          The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.29.3.2016 in CC.No.225/2013.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

 

1.         This appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the District Commission, Chennai (North) as against the order dt.29.3.2016 in CC.No.225/2013, by allowing the complaint. 

 

2.       The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

          The case of the complainants is that the Respondents/ complainants are newly married couple from a decent family background.  They have reserved first Class AC ticket in PNR No.4254801224 in train No.16178 from Trichy to Egmore dt.6.9.2013.  At that time the ticket was wait listed.  Subsequently, by EQ it was confirmed.  Hence they travelled with confirmed ticket.  On 7.9.2013, the Rock Fort Express reached Chennai Egmore at 5.30 am.  From Egmore they have to go to Central Station in order to go Sevvapet Road station.  Further the 1^st complainant’s father was waiting at Chennai Central Sub Urban station with two sub urban train first class tickets meant for complainants journey to Sevvapet Road.  Due to urgency, and heavy hand luggage they carried and they inadvertently assumed that they had valid ticket from Trichy to Sevvapet Road, they stepped into the local train to reach Chennai Central to join with 1^st complainant’s father who was waiting at the Chennai Central Sub Urban station.  At that time Train Ticket Checker at Chennai Park Railway Station, without name badge, asked the complainants to show the ticket.  They showed the ticket and explained the reason, and also said that they were newly married couples and ready to pay any excess fare if called for to avoid unnecessary attention.  However the TTE grabbed their Reserved Rock Fort Ticket, and unnecessarily kept the complainants waiting for more than one hour at Park Station, and passed lewd comment upon complainants alongwith other staffs and had later given a receipt for Rs.4444/- towards the excess fare, as if they had travelled without ticket from Trichy to Chennai.  Though they protested, due to TTE’s insulting comments at the platform which was filled with hundreds of commuters, complainants had been deeply humiliated, insulted and their first train travel after their marriage ended with negative scar of insecurity, uncultured, unprofessional behaviour of TTE.   When they enquired with the Station Master the complainants were informed that the reasons for the fine amount was that as if they had travelled without ID proof, since second complainant had valid driving license which was accepted and verified by the TTE of Rock Fort Express.  For the only reason to insult the complainants, the TTE had levied hefty fine.  The complainants were informed by the staffs of the opposite parties that the fine amount was only Rs.260/- for ticketless travelling in EMU of Tambaram to Beach.  Hence the complainant had sent notice to the opposite parties on 17.9.2013 and 26.9.2013, though it was received by the opposite parties they had not replied.  Hence the complaint was filed by the complainants praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.85000/- towards compensation and to refund the excess amount of Rs.4444/- and also to pay cost. 

 

3.       The case of the complainants was resisted by the opposite parties by filing version as follows:

          The complaint made against the senior ticket examiner is false and not correct.  The action taken by the senior TTE will not amount to deficiency in service, since he had discharged his duty within the rules.  Therefore, the dispute will not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.  As per the records E-ticket purchased by the complainant were not confirmed under the emergency quota but on normal channel only.  The passengers travelling with e-ticket, have to carry the printout of the ticket alongwith any of the listed identity card in original.  Both the ticket and the ID card will be examined by the ticket checking staff on stations/trains for verification purpose.  Since the complainant had failed to produce the original ID when requested by the TTE concerned, he had imposed fine and the complainants have paid the fare and excess fare levied @ Rs.4,444/- without any protest under acknowledgement in the excess fare ticket as a token of acceptance.  The reason for fine and its details were explained by the TTE to the complainants.  The allegations of the complainants are all false and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.       Both parties have filed their respective proof affidavits and documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A9 on the side of the complainants and Ex.B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite parties. 

 

5.       The District Commission after analysing the entire evidence, has come to the conclusion that the complainant had not travelled  with proper ID, cannot be accepted, therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the TTE and thus directed the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.4444/- alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.  Aggrieved over the above order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

 

6.       The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that absolutely there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainants had travelled from Trichy to Egmore on e-ticket.  Therefore, necessarily they have to carry identity card in original.   In the instant case, after alighting from Rockfort Express at Egmore, they boarded EMU from Chennai Egmore to Park, without buying tickets.  They themselves admitted the fact that they did not purchase tickets from Egmore to Park Station.  When the TTE asked them to produce the id proof either for travelling from Trichy to Chennai or from Chennai Egmore, they were not in a position to produce the same.  Since the production of ID proof is mandatory as per the Commercial Circular No.56/2008 dt.8.10.2008, the levying of fine is valid.  Therefore, by treating it as unauthorised travel from Trichy to Egmore, and Egmore to Park, the fine was correctly levied by the TTE.  The TTE had acted only in accordance with the rules.  Thus there is no deficiency in service.  Without considering these aspects, the District Commission had passed the order, which is liable to be set aside. 

7.       Countering the submissions the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted a detailed submission by adverting to the averments made in the complaint, and supporting the findings of the District Commission.

 

8.       We have heard the submissions on either side, perused the materials placed on record, and the order impugned, this commission made the following order:

 

9.       For deciding the appeal, the only question falls for consideration is Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

10.     POINT NO.1:

          It is an admitted fact that the Respondents/ complainants, who are the newly married couple, travelled from Trichy to Chennai Egmore, in order to go to Sevvapet Road junction.  After alighting from the train Rock Fort express, in order to go to Central Station, where the father of the 1^st Respondent was waiting in order to take them to Sevvapet station, they boarded EMU train at Egmore to reach Park Station.  Since they were having heavy luggage and due to urgency, they did not buy ticket.  These facts were admitted by the opposite parties themselves.   But the TTE of the opposite parties, who checked them at Park Station, asked them to pay a sum of Rs.4444/- by treating them as unauthorised passenger from Trichy itself, on the ground that they did not have valid id proof. 

 

11.     According to the complainants, the 2^nd Respondent had shown the driving licence as an ID proof. 

 

12.     Be it as it may, we are of the considered opinion that once they got down from the Rockfort express and boarded the EMU train at Egmore, the TTE at Park Station had earmarked them as an unauthorised passenger from Trichy onwards.  It is a common knowledge had they not been in possession of any identity card, the TTE in the compartment would not have allowed them to travel from Trichy to Chennai.  Whereas the fact remains that they travelled and reached Chennai.  In fact the complainants by accepting their guilt were ready to pay fine for travelling from Egmore to Park station without ticket.  The opposite parties moreover had not produced any rule to show that the passengers should produce id proof for travelling in EMU train also.  Without considering all these, the TTE made them to wait for more than ½ an hour and collected fine for travelling from Trichy to Chennai, as if they do not possess valid id. It is the duty of the opposite parties, to verify the passengers, as to whether they are having valid tickets and id while they boarded in the train at Trichy.  If they had not done so, and permitted them to travel from Trichy to Chennai would mean sheer negligence on their part.  But the fact remains that they travelled comfortably without any chaos from Trichy to Chennai.  Therefore, the presumption is that the complainants ought to have produced a valid id before the TTE in the compartment.  For proving contra, the opposite parties had not produced any proof. The opposite parties also had not produced any document to show that the complainants had travelled throughout without any valid id proof.   Therefore, it goes without saying that the complainants have travelled with proper id from Trichy.

 The opposite parties also have failed to prove that from any station at any point of time, the opposite parties are entitled to check the tickets and the other documents, related to previous journey also. But the fact remains that if the complainants have not revealed the truth that they were coming from Trichy by Rock Fort express, the opposite parties would not be in a position to know the truth.  Then they ought to have collected the actual fine for not buying ticket from Egmore to Park station.  The act of the complainants in revealing the truth that they are coming from Trichy, would clearly shows that the complainants are much genuine in their words.  Therefore we hereby concur with the findings of the District Commission that the complainants had travelled throughout with proper identity only.  Moreover the fact of the case would show that the TTE would have made them to wait for more than ½ an hour and would have humiliated, since the fine amount collected was much exorbitant, for having travelled from Egmore to Park without ticket.  Being a newly married couple, they would have gone through tremendous mental agony infront of public.   The opposite parties, being a public service department, instead of initiating proper action for the malicious act committed by the TTE, had come forward with lame excuses, and trying to shield the fault committed by the TTE, by appreciating his act and by praising him as if he had done a lawful act.   Therefore, obviously the opposite parties are vicariously liable for the act committed by the TTE.  By considering all these facts, we hereby concur with the findings of the District Commission that the act of the TTE of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, and awarding a sum of Rs.25000/- towards compensation is justifiable.  Therefore, we find no merit to interfere with the findings of the District Commission.  Accordingly, the appeal deserves dismissal. 

 

13.     This commission is also of the opinion that the appellants/ opposite parties shall recover the amount awarded towards compensation, from the erring official, instead of paying the same from the exchequer. 

 

14.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North) in CC.No.225/2013 dt.29.3.2016.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal. 

 

 

  S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                          R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT