Prof: K. Shreesha Acharya,

Aged about 69 years

S/o Venkataramana bhat.



2) Smt. Anasuya S,

Aged about 63 years,

W/o K. Shreesha Acharya,

Both residing at D.No.13-3-41,

Opp: Taluk Office, Court Road,

Udupi 576 101.

(Sri Santhosh Hebbar, Advocate for the Complainant)

………..Complainant

Versus



South- Western Railways,

Hubli.

By its Chief Commercial Manager,



(Sri N.Geetha Kausik., Advocate for the Opposite Party)

……..Opposite Party



WRITTEN BY SRI P.C.GOPAL, PRESIDENT.



1. This complaint is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party and prayed for directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs.742/- being excess fare collected wide ticket No. D.231166 from the complainant with interest at 12% p.a from 29.8.2008 till realization and for Rs. 25,000/- towards the damages for mental agony and for the cost of this proceedings.



2. The case of the complainant is that they booked from Udupi two seats in train No. 6518 for journey from Mangalore to Bangalore and fare paying passengers have traveled from Mangalore to Bangalore on 28.8.2008 paying fare of Rs.325/- ( Rs. Three hundred and twenty five). They had also booked two seat for their journey back from Yashavanthpur junction to Mangalore in train No. 6517

Contd…….2

which also costs them Rs.325/- which was subsequently cancelled by the complainants.



3. The Yeshawanthpur Railway station is about six kilometers from Bangalore Central. The fare for journey for six Kilometers is Rs. 26 per seat.



4. The Complainants submit that they on reaching Bangalore Railway Station on 29.8.2008 instead of getting down have decided to go on with the same train to Yeshavanthpur as they had valid ticket for the same and also they have told the train officials in that regard. The T.T.E then appeared and demand the complainants to show their tickets. When the complainants showed him the ticket and conveyed him their request for the extended journey, the TTE has asked them to pay Rs.182/-. When the complainants enquired him as to why he was insisting on high fare when it costs only Rs.26/- per head. The TTE short back saying that they were travelling without tickets. The complainants protested to the same. The TTE without any right or authority had then extracted Rs. 742/- from the complainants. When he was about to leave the place the complainants insisted him for the receipt for the money. He then gave one.



5. The complainants Submit that after reaching Udupi, the first complainant had sent a notice to the opposite party requesting him to refund the excess money they have received from the complainant along with damages for mental agony caused to him. For the said notice the opposite party has given a reply dated 26.11.2008. Further it is submitted that by its commission and omission the Opposite Party has practiced unfair trade practice and also guilty of deficiency in service put the complainants into great mental agony, loss and hardship. Hence this complaint.



6. After service of notice of complaint, the Opposite Party appeared through the counsel and filed the version contenting that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint. The Opposite Party at the time of institution of complainant or at any time actually and voluntarily residing are carrying on business or as a branch office or personally works for gain.



8. Opposite Party denies that the cause of action for this complaint arose on 29.82008 and subsequently in Udupi within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

Contd…….3

9. Opposite Party submits that it is more or less correct that the complainant booked from Udupi two seats in train No.6518 for journey to Mangalore to Bangalore and as fare paying passenger has traveled from Mangalore to Bangalore on 28.8.2008 paying fare of Rs. 325/- . However it is denied that they had also booked two seats for their journey back from Yeshawanthpur Junction to Mangalore in train No.6517 which also costs them Rs. 325/- and the same was subsequently cancelled by the complainants.



10 The Opposite Party denies that the complainant on reaching Bangalore Railway station on 29.8.2008 instead of getting down they have decided to go on with the same train to Yeshwanthpur as they had valid ticket for the same and also as they have told the train official in that regard. The complainants were found by traveling by sleeper class. As per Exact rule minimum distance for charge in sleeper class is 200 Kms. and minimum chargeable fare is Rs. 91/- only. Passenger cannot be charged for 6 Kms as submitted by the complainants.



11. The Opposite Party submitted that the complainants had reserved tickets only up to Bangalore City to continue their journey beyond Bangalore city Railway station they had to approach the TTE for an extension tickets or complainants had to buy tickets at the station. In this case complainants neither approached the TTE nor purchased the tickets for the journey beyond the Bangalore city Railway Station. Opposite Party denies that the complainants have also told the train officials with regard to the continuation of the journey.



12. Opposite Party submits that at Bangalore when TTE checked the complainants tickets the fare demanded for extension Rs.182/- which is the minimum fare ( Rs.91+91) is found to be correct. Later the complainants were charged with extra fare for traveling without valid ticket. Fare of Rs. 742/- collected by the ticket checking staff found to be in order. i.e. fare Rs. 182-00 + extra charges Rs.250x2= Rs 500 + reservation and development charges Rs.30x2= Rs.60 aggregating to Rs. 742=00. The Opposite Party emphatically denies the averments made in latter half para III(3).



14. Opposite Party denied that when the complainants enquired the TTE as to why he was insisting on high fare when it cost only Rs. 26/- per head, the TTE shot back saying that they were traveling without tickets, that the complainants protested to the same that the TTE without any right or authority then extracted

Contd……4

Rs.742/- from the complainant, that when he was about to leave the place, complainants insisted him for issuance of the receipt for the money that he then gave one. The Opposite Party submitted that all possible help was extended by its staff to help the passenger to extend their journey. Rules regarding extension of journey and minimum distance of charges are notified in all railways time table and is made available to all the passengers at a nominal rate. The Complainant in particular being highly qualified was not ready to follow the rules and argued with the TTE while he checked the tickets. In the end, the first Complainant was charged for the extent rules for traveling without valid ticket or authority.



15. Opposite Party admitted that the first Complainant had sent a notice to the Opposite Party requesting to refund the alleged excess money alleged to have received from the Complainants alognwith other reliefs. It is denied that any damages or mental agony was caused to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties have given proper reply dated 26.11.2008 to the notice of the Complainant.



16. Opposite Party denies that by its alleged commission and omission it has practiced unfair trade and also guilty of deficiency of service and put the Complainant into great mental agony, loss and hardship. Absolutely there is no deficiency in service on the p art of the Opposite Party. There is no cause of action which has arisen as against the Opposite Party and one alleged in complaint is false and imaginary and make believe so as to file the complaint within the jurisdiction of this Forum.



17. It is further submitted that the ticket checking staff at Bangalore has given the opportunity to the party to extend their journey for which the Complainant did not agree. By collecting the actual fare alognwith excess charge the staff of Opposite Party have only done their duty.



18. Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount claimed by the Complainant nor it is liable to pay any interest on any amount from any date. There fore the Opposite Party prays that false and frivolous complaint filed by the Complainants may be dismissed with exemplary costs.



19. Complainants have produced 5 documents which are marked as Exs.C-1 to Exs.C-5. Opposite Parties have not produced any document. Both the parties have filed affidavits, interrogatories, reply affidavits. We heard both the parties.

Contd…….5

20. the points that arise for our consideration are as follows:

1) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?

2) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?

3) Whether the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

4) Whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?

5) What Order?

Point No.1 & 2:

21. The counsel for the Opposite Party argued that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and hence the complaint is not maintainable on this ground alone. The Complainants were penalized only at Bangalore City when they committed the offence in between Bangalore City Junction and Yeshwanthpur Journey. There was no cause of action or complication in between the journey from Mangalore to Bangalore Junction. Just because the ticket is booked at Udupi, the cause of action for the complaint will not arise within the jurisdiction of this Forum and this complaint cannot be entertained before this Forum.

The counsel for the Complainant argued that in view of the judgment reported in II (1991) CPJ 474, it is interalia provided that the complaint would be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or partly arises. Complainants submitted that the journey started on account of the obtaining the ticket by paying the amount at Udupi and hence the part of the cause of action arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. In view of the above citation, we hold that this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint is maintainable before this Forum. Hence, we answer the point No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.



Point No.3:

22. We refer to certain facts which are not in dispute; the Complainants have booked a journey cum reservation ticket at Udupi bearing PNR (Passenger Name Record) No.440-0011847 dated 28.08.2008 in Train No.6518 bearing Ticket No.00164112 in Yeshwanthpur Express boarding at Mangalore Central Railway Station to Bangalore City Junction. The seat No.38UB and 40SU was booked in coach No.S4. Male member aged 65 years Senior citizen and the female aged 63 years senior citizen the total fare of Rs.325/- was collected for the distance of 503 Kms. The schedule of departure on 28.08.2008 from Mangalore Central (MAQ) at 19:45 hrs. and arrival to Bangalore City Junction (SBC) at 07:05 hrs. on

Contd…….6

29.08.2008, reaching Yeshwanthpur (YPR) by 7.40 a.m. The station index code of Bangalore /Contonment/Yeshwanthpur is ‘D10’ and Mangalore Central ‘20A’. The Train bearing No.6517 and 6518 are of “Yeshwanthpur Express” running Opposite direction every day. The Yeshwanthpur (YPR) Railway Station is about 6 Kms. from Bangalore (SBC) the peak season fare for the journey for 6 Kms. is Rs.26/- per seat.

23. The case of the Complainant is that on reaching to Bangalore Railway Station on 29.08.2008 instead of getting down they decided to go on with the same train to Yeshwanthpur and they have told the train official in that regard. According to the Complainants the TTE who appeared had demanded the Complainants to show their tickets, when the Complainants showed him the ticket and conveyed and they requested for the extended journey, the TTE had asked them to pay Rs.182/-.

When the Complainants enquired him as to why he was insisting high fare when it costs only Rs.26/- per head, the TTE shot back saying that they were traveling without tickets. The Complainant protested for the same. The TTE without any right or authority had then extracted Rs.742/- from the Complainants when he was about to leave the place the Complainants insisted him for the receipt of the money then he gave the receipt as per Ex.C-3.


24. Opposite Party submits that the Complainants were found traveling by sleeper clause as per exact rule the minimum distance for charge n sleeper for 200 Kms. and minimum chargeable fare is Rs.91/- hence the passenger cannot be charged for 6 Kms. as submitted by the Complainant. Opposite Party further submits that the Complainants have reserved tickets only upto Bangalore City. To continue their journey beyond Bangalore City Railway Station they had to approach the TTE for an extension ticket or Complainant had to buy tickets at the station. In this case the Complainants neither approach the TTE nor purchase the tickets for the journey beyond Bangalore Railway Station, hence the Complainants are ticketless travelers from Bangalore city Railway Station to Yeshwanthpur Railway Station.

When TTE checked the complainants tickets the fare demanded for extension Rs.182/- which is the minimum fare ( Rs.91+91) is found to be correct. Later the complainants were charged with extra fare for traveling without valid ticket. Fare of Rs. 742/- collected by the ticket checking staff found to be in order i.e. fare Rs. 182-00 + extra charges Rs.250x2= Rs 500 + reservation and development charges Rs.30x2= Rs.60 aggregating to Rs. 742=00.

Contd……7

25. The Complainant contended that the train fare from Mangalore Central (MAQ) to Yeshwanthpur (YPR) is the same fare to that of Mangalore Central to Bangalore City Junction. The Complainants have produced a ticket at Ex.C-2 wherein the Complainants booked ticket from Yeshwanthpur Junction to Mangalore Central for the journey dated 9.9.2008 in Train No.6517, ticket No.00151530 which was subsequently cancelled on 6.9.2009 shows the fare collected of Rs.325/-..


26. The Complainant argued that they have requested the ticket checking authority to extend their journey upto “Yeshwanthpur”. Complainant referred to page No.270 in “Train at Glance” for Questions and Answers.

Question: Can I extend my journey beyond the original destination?

Answer: “Yes, Indian Railways allows extensions of journey, this can

be done by approaching the ticket checking staff either before reaching your destination or completion of booked journey the fare for the extended portion of the journey will be collected without the benefit of the telescopic rates”.


27. The Complainant has sworn an affidavit reiterating the contents of the complaint and has stated that when they decided to go with the same train to Yeshwanthpur and they requested the train official with regard to the extension of journey. As per their request the Railway Authorities have extended their journey and they provided seat in S-5 Coach bearing Seat No.42, 45 and the endorsement to that effect has been made by the Railway Authority on Ex.C-1 and has signed as could be seen in Ex.C-1.


The TTE then appeared and demanded them to show their tickets. When the Complainants showed him the tickets the TTE has asked to pay Rs.182/- instead of Rs.26/- per head. Though he has protested the same the authority had extracted Rs.742/- from the Complainant. The peak season fare between 500 to 510 Kms. is Rs.187/-. The peak season fare within 10 Kms. for sleeper coach si Rs.26/- per head.


28. To controvert the contention of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties have not produced the TTE or the other Railway Authorities who checked the tickets of the Complainant as witness. Atleast the affidavit of the TTE or Railway Authorities who checked the tickets should have been filed before this Forum explaining the situation and circumstances in imposing the penalty on the Complainants. The Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railway has filed the version and

Contd…..8

sworn the affidavit who is not the person who actually checked the Complainants at the Train or endorsed the extended journey to the Complainants allotting seat No.42, 45 in S-5 Coach. He is not the person who imposed penalty and collected Rs.742/- from the Complainants and he has no personal knowledge about the incident happened. Therefore, in the absence of the same, we accept the version and evidence of the Complainants that they have requested for the extension of the journey and is liable to pay only Rs.26 x 2 = 52 being fare for senior citizen for the extended journey from Bangalore Central to Yeshwanthpur and collecting Rs.182/- as fare, excess fare of Rs.500/- and luggage freight of Rs.60/-, in total Rs.742/- is not justified. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service. The Complainants being Senior citizen the Railways officials could have obliged and collected only the fare of extended journey. Hence, we answer the point No.3 in the Affirmative.

Point No.4 & 5:

29. In view of the Affirmative answer to point No.3, we hold that the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs. The Opposite Party is entitled to collect Rs.52/- as fare for the extended journey and liable to refund Rs.690/- to the Complainants alongwith interest at 12% per annum from 29.08.2008, till the date of payment. There is no evidence to award compensation for mental agony suffered by the Complainants. We direct the Opposite Party to pay the cost of the proceedings as the Opposite Party made the Complainants to approach this Forum for reliefs. Hence, we answer the point No.4 in the Affirmative. .


30. In the result, we pass the following

ORDER

Complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.690/- the Complainants with interest at 12% per annum from 29.08.2008, till payment. Opposite Party is further directed to pay to the Complainants a sum of Rs.2,000/- being the cost of this proceeding.

Ambily.G,

W/o.Jayaraj.G.A,

'Sayujyam',

FCI Colony, 2nd lane,

Industrial Estate(P.O),

Puthuppariyaram 678731,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs




M/s.Kalyan Silks,

Railway Station Road,

Palakkad. - Opposite party



O R D E R


Complainant purchased a saree worth Rs.1935/- together with sixty three other items from the opposite party shop on 24/09/2008. The same was purchased for wearing for the marriage function of her brother to be held on 31/10/2008 at Alapuzha. On 30/10/2008 complainant wore the saree for a trial and found that the top of the saree was torn. As the defect was noted the day before marriage and as she was busy with the marriage, she could not approach the opposite party on the same day itself. After returning from Alapuzha, on 04/11/2008 complainant approached the opposite party and informed the defect in the saree. Opposite party did not replace the defective saree. Instead behaved in a rude manner. The stand of the opposite party was that the defect noted is due to the mishandling by the complainant while using. Complainant claims an amount of Rs.3,500/- including the price of the saree as compensation.




2. Opposite party filed version contending the following:

Opposite party admits the purchase of the saree by the complainant. According to the

opposite party, complainant purchased the goods after examining it. No defects was noted at that time. The say of the complainant that the defect in the saree was noticed only on the day before marriage is false. Complainant approached the opposite party only after 41 days after the date of purchase. On examination opposite party found that the saree was used and the tearing was caused as a result of stepping on the same while walking. As the defect is due to the mishandling of the saree by the complainant herself, opposite party is not liable for any amount as compensation.




3. The evidence adduced consists of the affidavit of both parties. Exts.A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant. Defective saree marked as MO1.




4. Now the issues for consideration are,

1.

Whether the opposite party is liable to compensate for the defective saree?
2.

If so, what is the reliefs and costs?




Issue No.1:

5. Heard both parties and perused relevant materials on record. There is no dispute as to the purchase of the saree from the opposite party shop. According to opposite party, the tearing noted in the saree can only be caused as a result of stepping on the saree while walking. Further there is delay of 41 days in approaching the opposite party. Complainant has produced the saree before the forum and is marked Ext.MO1.




6. From Ext.A1 series it is evident that the complainant has purchased the said saree along with 63 other items. Purchase of the same is for the marriage of her brother at Alapuzha. The fact is revealed from Ext.A4 and A5. On examination of MO1, it can be seen that defect is not a patent one or that which can be easily noted. Another relevant fact to be noted is that tearing of the saree is in the top side. So the contention of opposite party that it is as a result of stepping on the same is unacceptable.




7. Admittedly there is delay in approaching the opposite party requesting replacement. But the complainant has properly explained the delay caused with convincing evidence. Opposite party by selling the defective saree has caused loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence complainant is entitled for compensation.




8. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of

Rs.1,935/- (Rupees One thousand nine hundred and thirty five only) being the price of the defective saree along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation. MO1 can be released by the complainant after the period of appeal.