In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service by the opposite parties.

The Factual  matrix  of the case is that :- The complainant for the purpose of medical check-up of his sister at Visakhapatnam in the state of Andhra Pradesh booked ticket of his own alongwith his sister and brother on 14.09.2016 under E-Ticket system of Indian Railway vide Train No. and Name 18517 KRBA VSKP EXP, date of journey 18.09.2016, from Nuapada to Visakhapatnam, PNR No. 6356502472, Reference ID 100000603425016, Status-confirm vide Coach No. S1 Vide Seats No. UB 67, UB 70, SL 71 and paying the amount through Itz Cash system and thereafter the complainant along with 2 others boarded the train on 18.09.2016 from Nuapada Station to Visakhapatnam and on the way of the journey near Titilagarh Railway Station, the TTE on duty asked the complainant to show their journey ticket and the complainant showed their e-Ticket alongwith his Voter Identity Card  and after examined the ticket the TTE told the complainant  that the ticket is not booked against the Seat No. SL 71 under S1 Coach and as such he is liable to pay Rs. 555/- (Rupees five hundred and fifty five) only for the same and in default he threatened to handover the complainant to Railway Police.  The complainant protested the demand of TTE as the ticket of complainant is confirmed on the said seat but the TTE did not respond the same for which the complainant paid the demand amount of Rs. 555/- and the TTE issued an Excess Fare Ticket Receipt of the same to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant lodged a written report before the Titilagarh Police and Station Master, but they did not heed and they denied to receive the same.   The cause of action of this case arose on dt.18.09.2016 in the Train KRBA VSKP EXP which runs through Nuapada and the complainant boarded the Train from Nuapada Railway Station and at Titilagarh Junction on dt. 19.09.2016 when the TTE compelled the complainant to pay the said extra fare charge and on the same time

when the Station Master and Railway Police of Titilagarh denied to receive the FIR lodged by complainant.  As such the complainant claimed for reliefs as prayed for.  The complainant has filed the documents in support of their claims as under :-

1. Carbon copy of Excess Fare Ticket dt. 19.09.2016 issued by TTE as (Annexure-1),
2. Copy of Electronic Reservation Slip (Annexure-2),
3. Xerox copy of Voter Identity Card of the complainant (Annexure-3).

Being noticed, the Opposite parties No.2 to 4  appeared through their Advocate and filed written version and challenged the allegations of complaint petition except Paragraph No. 1.OP No.1  neither appear  nor  file any written version .OP No.2   to 4  have  filed a Xerox copy of Commercial Circular No. 04 of 2012 dt. 16.01.2012  as Annexure- A and a Xerox copy of letter dt. 14.03.2017 as Annexure- B, a Xerox copy of complaint petition dt. 21.12.2016 as Annexure-C, a Xerox copy of PNR enquiry as Annexure-D, a Xerox copy Excess Fare Ticket dt. 19.09.2016 as Annexure-E, a Xerox copy of Passenger list dt. 18.09.2016 as Annexure-F, and a Xerox copy of Reservation Chart for Sleeper Class as Annexure-G to G/10 in support of their claim.

In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable in the eye of law  ?
2. Whether the Forum has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon         and there is cause of action  ?
3. Whether any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
4. To what relief the complainant is entitled to  ?

ISSUE No. I to III..

Since the issues are very much linked up with each other, those are taken up for jointly discussion and findings.

On perusal of case record as well as the documents of the complainant and opposite parties, it is found that on 14.09.2016, the complainant booked ticket of his own alongwith his sister  and brother under  E-Ticket system of Indian Railway vide Train No. and Name 18517- KRBA VSKP EXP, Date of Journey 18.09.2016, from Nuapada to Visakhapatnam, vide PNR No. 6356502472, Reference ID 100000603425016, Status confirm vide Coach No. S1, vide Seats No. UB 67, UB 70, SL 71, and paying the amount through ITZ Case system and thereafter the complainant alongwith their  brother and sister boarded the train on 18.09.2016 from Nuapada Station to Visakhapatnam for medical check-up of their  sister and on the way of journey near Titilagarh Railway Station, the TTE on duty asked the complainant to show their tickets and accordingly he showed their e-Ticket alongwith his Voter Identity Card and after examined the ticket the TTE told the complainant that the ticket is not booked against the Seat No. SL 71 under S1 Coach and as such he is liable to pay Rs. 555/- (Rupees five hundred and fifty five) only and in default he threatened to handover the Railway Police, but the complainant protested the same as the ticket of complainant is confirmed on the above said seat but the TTE did not heed for the same for which the complainant paid the said amount and the TTE issued an Excess Fare Ticket Receipt to the complainant and thereafter the complainant rushed to lodge a written report before the Titilagarh Railway Police and Station Master, but they denied to receive the same which is squarely absurd by them.     

So in this predicament the complainant has knocked  the door of this Forum.

In another factual aspect is that , as per Annexure-A filed by the OPs, it is clear that any one of the passengers/the passenger booked on the tickets  issued from computerised Passenger Reservation  System      ( PRS) and internet ( i-ticket)  are to carry original proof  of  Identity during the course of Railway journey .

Further it is seen that the OPs have  remain silent  on the identity proof       of the brother and sister of complainant named J.Rout ( UB -70) and R.Bag( SL-71) .So it is presumed that the OPs were satisfied on the identity proof of the above said two person though the complainant booked  e-ticket jointly with their brother and sister  so here, any one can carry and show their original proof of identity  during the course of journey.

Further in another factual aspect is that,  it is the duty of OPs and burden lies on them that they should proved their plea on the strength of relevant documents  like photographs and any supporting evidences through affidavit that the complainant was sitting in seat No.SL-71 and he  did not produce original I.D. during the course of jouney  but here , the OPs have failed to do the same.

So the plea of OPs is unbelivable due to want of the above said documents.

So far as the point of jurisdiction is that as per Section 37 Clause(c) the complaint of complainant don’t fall within the jurisdiction of the Railway Tribunal as per Railway Act, 1989 as under:-

“ Section 37- matters not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal-Nothing in this Chapter shall confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal in respect of

1. Classification or reclassification of any commodity.
2. Fixation of wharf age and demurrage charges (including conditions attached to such charges),
3. Fixation of fares levied for the carriage of passengers and freight levied for the carriage of Luggage, Parcels, Railway materials and Military Traffic; and
4.  Fixation of Lump sum rates.”

Further it is seen that the Station Master East Coast Railway is situated at Nuapada and running the Railway Branch Office, so the complaint of complainant fall within the jurisdiction at Nuapada.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “ Neeraj Munjal and others Vrs. Atul Grover (Minor) and others, 2005 (3) CLT 30 of the Judgment held that the Court could not deprive the parties from a remedy, which is otherwise available to them;  in law.  It has been further held that a Court of Law has to jurisdiction to direct a matter to be governed by one statute when provisions of other statute are available.

 So we are of considered opinion that this Forum has wide jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute and the complainant has cause of action and it is maintainable in the eye of law.

Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of “GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY  V/S  BALBIR SINGH” that each and every element of suffering while availing service as a consumer has to be taken into consideration while compensating him for the loss or injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence or deficiency in service of the service provider.

In further, the Apex Court has held that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is an addition and not in a derogation of any other law for the time being in force including the Indian Railway Act.

Further it is seen that as per Section 2 (1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, every passenger travelling inside the train is a consumer by virtue of hiring service against consideration and therefore any loss or injury suffered by the passenger either at platform, inside or outside the train entitles him and his legal heirs as to a reasonable amount as compensation.

Perused the documents of complainant as well as the opposite parties, we found that the claim of complainant is justified and the penalty imposed against the complainant by the opposite parties is unlawful and basing on that the complainant is suffering financial loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency of service by the opposite parties.

So, we are of considered view that the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service.

                   Accordingly, the issues are answered in favour of the complainant.

ISSUE No. V.

It is clear crystal that the complainant has proved his case and he is entitled to get relief in this case.  Hence, order :-

O R D E R.

In the aforesaid matrix of facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct U/s 14(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as below :-

1. We direct the Opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.555/- (Rupees five hundred and fifty five) only towards the extra fare charges within 30 (thirty) days from the date of order.
2. We further direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and to further pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards litigation cost within  30 days from the date of order.
3. Failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per process of law.

              Judgment pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 18^th   day of  January 2018.