D.O.F:01/08/2018
D.O.O:10/12/2020
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.127/2018
Dated this, the 10th day of December 2020
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Mr.Muhammed Irfan Ali M K, Aged 28 years
Son of late A K Muhammed, Business : Complainant
R/at. Thabsheera Manzil, P.O Muttathody
Vidya Nagar, Kasaragod-671 123
( Adv: Shajid Kammadam )
And
- Southern Railway, Park Town
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 003
Rep by The General Manager
: Opposite parties
- Southern Railway, Palakkad Division
Olavankkode, Kerala – 678 002
Rep by The Divisional Manager
-
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
Complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act: - Brief facts of the case in as follows,
Complainant is a businessman. He scheduled to attend his meeting to be held on 27/08/2017 at Calicut, he purchased the un-reserved ticket from Kasaragod to Calicut for travel on 26/08/2017. He paid Rs.430/-to the TTR to upgrade it for travel in AC three tire compartment. It is allowed by issuing its receipt for the amount.
2. Further more on 04/07/2018 he travelled from Kozhikode to Kasaragod in railway originally purchased un- reserved ticket later on entry in train got it up graded to AC three tires. But this time Rs. 450/- was collected from complainant .Railway collected excess charge than legally permissible. He suffered mental tension lost peace of mind felt worried thus there is deficiency in service and claimed compensation of Rs.75000/-
3. Opposite party appeared through counsel Adv: Abdul kader filed vakalath and version. Opposite party denied all the allegations. Main contentions are that he filed complaint previously as cc 90/2013 on the file of consumer forum for physical strain and harassment from the railway. It was dismissed with lost of Rs.5000/- to compensate the loss he has filed the false complaint. E A 23/2017 is still pending before the consumer forum. And prayed for dismiss the complaint.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit, and produced Ext A1 to A4 documents Ext A1 is the ticket dated 04/07/2018, Ext A4 is the receipt for Rs.450/-
5. As per contentions following issue arise for consideration in this case.
a) Whether their issue deficiency in service of the opposite party in collecting different fares on two different dates for travel, there by imposing excess charges and extra charges? If so for to what reliefs?
6 . Specific case of complainant is that opposite party has collected different charges for the same journey which caused him heavy mental agony and financial loss.
Opposite party contended that complainant filed complaint previously it is dismissed with cost to compensate the loss he filed false case against opposite party.
Prior to November 2016/RCTC issued to collect a service charge of Rs. 20 from non-AC classes and Rs. 40 for AC lasses including first class. The service charges were with-down on November 26,2016, to promote the digital payment transactions in the country , we find that the complainant being charged with excess fare ticket on 04/07/2018 by including GST @ 5% for travel is genuine and not against rules. From 01/07/2017 AC class passengers are liable to pay GST @5% of ticket charges. Since on the first occasion date of travel is 27/08/2017 just after one month of introduction of GST it may by on omission to add GST on the ticket thereby collected only Rs. 430/-. But by the time during 04/07/2018 GST is also collected in excess of Rs. 430/- as above.
7. The expression deficiency in service as defined under section 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It means any fault imperfection short coming, or in the quality, inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or otherwise in relation to any service. The complainant was required to book a ticket in advance for journey in AC class. He is liable to pay GST also. So position is so clear but in pleading the fact that GST is added is not specifically pleaded, so complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.20/- collected in excess as per version of complainant. But there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Railways in collecting GST permitted by law just because earlier GST is not added in the receipt and it will not amount to deficiency in service.
8. Furthermore amount collected is Rs. 20/- in excess. Since complainant’s case is that he suffered mental tension and agony due to collection of the amount. Here is the relevancy of averment in the written version, that he filed complainant earlier against the opposite party and dismissed with cost and EP is pending then in CDRF Kasaragod. He is waiting for an opportunity to strike the EP as and when he gets a chance. Opposite party collected Rs.20/- in excess, complainant come forward to file the case by spending more money to recover Rs.20/- from the largest transport system namely Indian Railways. Considering nature of the case forum finds that he is not entitled to any compensation. From the evidence on record it is clear that there is no deficiency in service from opposite party. Opposite party is liable to re-fund Rs.20/- collected excess from complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from 04/07/2018 till repayment and also cost of litigation Rs. 2000/- .
In the result complainant is allowed in part directed opposite party to refund Rs.20/- with interest @ 8% per annum from 04/08/2017 till its repayment and also pay Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) or cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 and A3- Railway Ticket
A2 and A4 – Excess fare ticket
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
