KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 479/11
JUDGMENT DATED : 15.11.11
PRESENT:
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
Divisional Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway,
Palakkad Division. : APPELLANT
(By Adv. S. Renganathan)
Vs
Venu K., S/o Late Kunhappu,
Kannamkai House, Cheruvathur, : RESPONDENT
Kasaragod.
(By Adv. R. Narayanan, amicus curiae)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated: 8.6.11 of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC No. 215/2010 is being challenged in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2,000/-within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that on 3.10.2010 he reached the Nileshwar Railway Station by 3.30 am for going to Guruvayur Temple and that at the advice of the 1st opposite party, he booked a ticket for the train which had stop at Kuttippuram and he had paid Rs.53/- and obtained the ticket and after entering in to the train, the TTE entered in the coach and checked the ticket of the complainant. It was told that he was not allowed to travel in that train which was a super fast train. The TTE charged Rs.259/- as penalty and complainant had a case that the balance amount of Rs.1,00/- was not returned by the TTE. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and the refund of Rs.259/- paid by the complainant.
3. In the version filed by the opposite parties, it was contended that it was not correct on the part of the complainant to travel with a ticket for express train in the Super fast train and that the TTE had rightly collected Rs.9/- towards the difference in ticket fare and Rs.250/- towards the minimum penalty. The opposite parties had submitted that there was no deficiency in service and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. The evidence consisted of the affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts. A1 and A2 on his side. On the side of the opposite parties the Divisional Commercial Manager, Palakkad filed affidavit and Ext. B1 was marked.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below is perse illegal and unsustainable. It is his very case that Sec. 137 of the Railway Act 1989 clearly says that if a passenger tries to travel with an unauthorized ticket, the railway is competent to charge penalty and also to collect the difference in fare from the passenger. He has also submitted that in the instant case it is the admitted fact that the complainant had the ticket that was allowed in the express train only. He has also argued that the complainant had traveled in the Super Fast train and that it was as per the relevant section that the TTE had collected Rs. 2,59/ from the complainant. The learned counsel has also denied the case of the complainant that the TTE refused to give back Rs.1,00/- to the complainant.
6. On the other hand, the learned amicus curiae, Adv. R. Narayanan supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He has submitted that the complainant had reached the railway station by 3.30 am and he had asked for a ticket to go to Guruvayur and it was the railway authorities who issued the ticket to the complainant. He has also argued that the railway authorities could know that the next train that was coming to the station was the super fast train and they ought to have given the super fast ticket to the complainant and it was not the fault of the complainant that the express train ticket was issued to the complainant when the super fast train was coming to the station. The learned counsel has also submitted that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service by issuing Express train ticket to the complainant where actually it was a super fast train that was approaching the station at that time. Contending for the position that the order of the Forum below is only to be upheld, the learned counsel prayed for the dismissal of the appeal with compensatory cost.
7. On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records, it is found that the complainant had traveled on 3.10.10 from Nileshwar by a super fast train to go to Guruvayur. It is also admitted that the TTE in the train imposed penalty of Rs.250/- and collected difference in charge amounting of Rs. 9/- from the complainant. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that such action of the TTE was well within the provisions of law as section 137 of the Railways Act empowers the TTE to impose penalty for traveling without the proper ticket. In the instant case it is the admitted fact that the complainant had traveled by a super fast train with a ticket that was allowed in an express train only. The learned counsel for the appellants had argued that the complainant had tried to travel in the super fast train with an express train ticket. But the learned amicus curiae would argue that there was no willful intention for the complainant to travel in the super fast train with the express train ticket and the said ticket was issued by the office of the first opposite party. But it is found that the TTE had acted according to the provisions of the Railway Act 1989 and it cannot be treated as deficiency in service. In the said facts and circumstances, the order of the Forum below directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and refund of Rs.2,59/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- is liable to be set aside and it is done so accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated :8.6.11 of CDRF, Kasaragod in CC 215/2010 is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
The office is directed to return the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
DA
