Punjab

StateCommission

CC/755/2017

Hakam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

Gourav Goel

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                     FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

                                           STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, PUNJAB

                                            SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGAR

                                                                  Consumer Complaint No.755 of 2017

                                                                                                                                                                  Date of Institution: 01.09.2017

                                                                                                                                                                  Date of Decision  : 05.09.2017

 

Hakam Singh aged about 43 years S/o Dayan Singh, r/o Village Bhadesra, Post Office Sarai Bharthara, District Firozabad, (U.P)

                                                                                       …..Complainant                                     

                                                                                            Versus         

1.     Union of India through Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), Room No. 471, Rail Bhavan, Railway Board, Near Delhi through its Director.

2.     Northern Railway, Ferozepur, through its Divisional Railway Manager/Assistant Comml: Manager

3.     Manjit Singh s/o not known, Deputy CIT, Amritsar, Railway Station, Amritsar.

4.     Chaman Lal s/o Not Known, Deputy CIT, Amritsar Railway Station, Amritsar.

                                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

         Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

               Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member

Present:-

          For the complainant              :  Sh. Gourav Goel, Advocate

                  

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

           The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act) against OPs, on the averments that he had to go to Jammu for appearance in the exam of T.T.A in the Department of BSNL and for reaching destination, he availed 2^nd M/Exp Ticket of OPs against physically handicapped concession certificate and boarded Tata Murti Express from Shikohabad Station for Jammu Tawi in general coach on 16.01.2008, as there was no physically handicapped coach available in the train. He alleged that on 17.01.2008, the train reached Jalandhar at 11.00 Am, where he got down for breakfast. As the train was leaving the station, he had to board a sleeper coach in haste, where two TTEs/OPs no.3 and 4 in civil dress apprehended him and demanded Rs.1300/- from him. He was not having enough money, he tried to convince the said TTEs/OPs no.3 and 4 that he would change the coach at the next station but OPs no.3 and 4 threatened him of dire consequences and forcibly snatched his physically handicapped certificate and Rs.800/- from him without any receipt. Thereafter, he could not travel to Jammu and got down at Amritsar station and approached CITs office and Dy. SS/ASR for complaining in this regard. He further alleged that on 17.01.2008, the CIT from Room no. 17-B talked to the said TTEs OPs no.3 and 4 through his mobile phone and asked the complainant to come the next day to collect his original physically handicapped certificate. When, he reached the CITs office next day, the CIT misbehaved and instead advised him that certificate would be posted at his address. He was, thus, left stranded for want of handicapped certificate, which has not yet been returned to him. In this regard, he made another complaint dated 08.11.2008, wherein he stated that enquiry was conducted into the above said matter in CIT office Room No. 15 on 17.10.2008 by the Vigilance Inspector, the complainant named two TTE as Chaman Lal and Manjeet OPs no.3 and 4 had made false statement and also lodged a false FIR dated 17.10.2008 with GRP/ASR, wherein he was made to state that his physically handicapped certificate in question was dropped somewhere, while he was travelling from Ludhiana to Amritsar with ticket no. 93439361 on 17.10.2008. He alleged that due to misbehaviour of above said TTEs OPs no.3 and 4, he has not appeared in the exam and he has not got the government job in the BSNL. He is handicapped person and his family is totally dependent upon him. The conduct of OPs no.3 and 4 amounts to unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint praying for compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- towards the loss suffered by him, Rs.4,00,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.      We have heard counsel for the complainant at length and also examined the record at preliminary stage of the complaint for admitting it.

3.      In Para no.3 of the complaint coupled with para no.3 of the affidavit of the complainant Hakam Singh, it is stated that he boarded a sleeper coach at Jalandhar railway station, where he got down for breakfast. He had to board sleep coach  in haste as the train started leaving the station, where OPs no.3 and 4/TTEs in civil dress apprehended him and demanded money for the fare for sleeper coach of Rs.1300/-. He had no money with him and tried to convince OPs no.3 and 4 that he would change the coach at the next station, but they threatened him of dire consequences and forcibly snatched his physically handicapped certificate and Rs.800/- from him and did not issue any receipt to him in that regard. He alleged that he could not travel to Jammu and got down at Amritsar station and lodged complaint against them in the concerned office. He was asked to collect his original physically handicapped certificate on 17.01.2008. When he reached the CITs office next day, the CIT rather misbehaved with him and asked him that his certificate would be posted at his address. His handicapped certificate has not been returned to him, as yet. Enquiry was conducted into above matter in the CIT office Room No. 15 on 17.10.2008 by the Vigilance Inspector and he was made to write false statement and lodge false FIR dated 17.10.2008 with the GRP/ASR to the effect that his physically handicapped certificate dropped somewhere from him, while travelling from Ludhiana to Amritsar with ticket no. 93439361 on 17.10.2008. The report was, thus, concluded against him. He remained deprived of job in BSNL and he could not attend his interview. His minimum salary would have been Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-  per month, as stated by him.

4.      This Commission is competent to take cognizance of the matter in case complainant is proved to be a 'consumer' as defined in Section 2(i)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has to prove that he availed service from OPs for consideration and they were deficient in service or committed unfair trade practice therein. As per own pleaded case of the complainant, he was not holding railway ticket for sleeper coach and he boarded sleeper coach at Jalandhar railway station. The TTEs/OPs no.3 and 4 rightly caught him without holding ticket of sleeper coach and imposed penalty on him. He alleged that he was misbehaved by them and his physically handicapped certificate was snatched from him by them, along with Rs.800/-. This is not a matter of rendering any service and complainant could bring this fact to the notice of police, in this case, if there was any extortion of his physically handicapped certificate and Rs.800/- from him by OPs no.3 and 4 in the railway compartment of sleeper coach. We find that this matter is outside the purview of this Fora, as it would not be said to be a service bought by complainant for consideration. Further, we find that complainant was not entitled to travel in the sleeper coach and he travelled therein by violating the law and and he himself is to blame therefor. OPs have rightly discharged their official duty, as enjoined upon them by law. The FIR lodged by the complainant has been found not to be of any credence, as per his own pleadings, as he alleged that he was made to sign the statement and lodge FIR that his physically handicapped certificate was dropped from him somewhere from Ludhiana to Amritsar. Even otherwise, the case is outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and falls within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station only, when the commission of cognizable offence is alleged. We, thus, hold that travelling in any compartment without ticket raises fingers of blame on the complainant and it is not a case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in our opinion. The complainant is, thus, not found to be ‘consumer’ under Section 2(i)(d) of CPA 1986 and complaint cannot be admitted for regular hearing in the preliminary stage and is dismissed in limine. 

5.      Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties under rules.

6.      The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                                                                                               (J. S. KLAR)

                                                                                                                       PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                                                                    (SURINDER PAL KAUR)

                                                                                                                                              MEMBER

 

September 5, 2017                                                             

(ravi)