BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

     SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER

                                                                           SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER                                     

Wednesday, 06^th April 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  93/ 2015

Inukonda Adi Narayana, S/o Late Chennaiah,

aged 72 years, R/at D.No. 7/105-1, NGO Colony,

Kadapa city & District.                                                        ….. Complainant.  

Vs.   

1.  The Station Master, South Central Railways,

     Kadapa Railway Station, Kadapa city.   

2.  The South Central Railways, Guntakal Division,

     Rep. by its Divisional Railway manager, Gunthakal Town,

     Ananthapur District.   

3.  The Southern Railway, Gunthakal Division,

     Rep. by its Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,

     Gunthakal Town, Ananthapur district.                           …..Respondents.

This complaint coming for final hearing on 31-3-2016 in the presence of Smt. I. Saradha, Advocate for complainant and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 and  upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),

1.             The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondents to refund extra amount of Rs. 5,790/- collected by the respondents from the complainant arbitrarily, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for damages and to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of this complaint.    

2.             The averments of the complaint which are necessary to decide this case are as follows.  The complainant who is a senior citizen affected with old age ailments intended to travel with his wife and daughter – in – law from Kadapa to Hazrat Nizamuddin on 10-8-2015.  He reserved ticket from Renigunta to Hazrat Nizamuddin boarding at Kadapa for the above three persons  with PNR No. 452-2709775 and boarded the train at Kadapa.  Entoute, when the train reached at Dhone the Ticket Collector came and asked the complainant to produce the original ticket.  But the complainant was unable to produce original ticket.  However, he produced Photostat copy of the ticket along with his identity card and asked the Ticket Collector to give some time to search his luggage to produce original ticket.  But the concerned Ticket Collector not cared the requests of the complaint and his wife and his daughter – in – law and behaved rudely.   The Ticket Collector directed the complainant and his wife to produce tickets in the next station i.e. Dhone.  Having no other option the complainant purchased general ticket and paid penalty.  Thus the Railways collected tickets twice from the complainant, his wife and his daughter – in – law not only amounts to negligence, carelessness and humiliation but also deficiency of service on the part of the respondent officials.   The complainant underwent physical strain, mental agony and suffered a  lot of inconvenience in view of dereliction of duties of the concerned Ticket Collector.  The daughter – in – law gave a complaint to the respondent officials at 7.30 p.m at Hazrat Nizamuddin about the incident.  But no action was taken.  Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.

3.             Respondent No. 3 filed counter and the same was adopted by Respondents 1 & 2  by filing memo.

4.             Respondent No. 3 denied the allegations regarding directing the complainant to produce ticket at Dhone humiliating, insulting the complainant and his wife and daughter – in – law behaving negligently, carelessness and highhandedly towards the complainant and negligence on his part and deficiency of service on the part of the railways and dereliction of the duties by the concerned ticket Collector and called upon the complainant to prove all of them.   However, R3 admitted that the complainant and two persons boarded the train at Kadapa to go to Hazrat Nizamuddin. 

5.             It is further averred the complainant boarded at Kadapa while verifying / checking passengers by travel authority the complainant produced the fax copy of PNR No. 452-2709775 instead of original travelling authority i.e. original reservation tickets.  Then the travelling ticket inspector politely explained the complainant and his family members that is fax, Photostat copy was invalid and insisted the complainant to produce original ticket.  But the complainant was unable to produce the same.  The complainant behaved adamantly and scolded the Ticket Inspector.  When the travelling Ticket Inspector approached the complainant at Tadipatri Station and explained the rule position and asked the complainant to pay fare and excess charge  to regularize their travelling from Kadapa to Hazrat Nizamuddin but the complainant did not heed.   On the other hand the complainant shouted at the travelling ticket inspector.  The co-passengers also explained the complainant about the invalid fax copy.  When the train reached Dhone Railway Station, the complaint himself went to the booking office purchased general tickets and produced before ticket inspector, then the ticket inspector collected difference of fare of three tickets and regularized their journey, without excess charges and regularized thier tickets by excess fare ticket No. 027957 and allotted the  same berths i.e. B2 – 57, 60 and 63 to the complainant and his family by charging  Rs. 4,530/-.  Thus the complainant was travelling with copy  of reservation ticket fax copy send by his son from Delhi and not carrying the original travelling authority i.e. the original reservation ticket.   As such the travelling ticket inspector was not having any other alternative except regularizing with the help of general ticket purchased by the complaint at Dhone Railway Station.  The complaint was given reasonable opportunity to provide original ticket but the complaint failed to produce valid travel authority even after consuming four hours time from Kadapa Railway Station to Dhone Railway Station.  On thorough verification of the photocopy of reservation ticket by the complainant it revealed the ticket was with PNR No. 452-2709775 was booked at passenger reservation system, New Delhi on 25-7-2015.   The original ticket might not have reached in time to the complainant from his son, resulting non availability of original reservation tickets with the complainant.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

6.             On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent officials as pleaded by the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against the respondents as prayed?
3. To what relief?

7.             No oral evidence has been let in by the parties.  But on behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A5 documents are marked.  On behalf of the respondents  no documents are marked.       

8.             Heard arguments on both sides.    

9.             Point No. 1  Learned counsel for complainant submitted that the ticket collector did not give proper time to the complainant to produce original ticket and behaved rudely, pressurized the complaint to purchase tickets at Dhone, though the complainant was having tickets with him.  Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the Railway Officials particularly the ticket collector.

10.            On the other hand learned counsel for respondents submitted the complainant had not produced the original tickets for him and his wife and daughter – in – law though they boarded train at Kadapa till done station inspite of given ample time by the ticket collector and a fax and photocopy of tickets are not valid for travelling as the original tickets can be encashed across the counter even after the train started and within three hours.  The ticket collector followed the rules and insisted for the original tickets.  But the complainant having failed to produce the original tickets purchased tickets at Dhone at his own option and paid the excess fare of Rs. 4,530/- under Ex. A3.   Thus there is no deficiency of service, dereliction of duty humiliation caused by ticket collector towards the complainant. 

11.            There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for respondents.  It is not in dispute that the complainant booked tickets in 3^rd A.C from Renigunta to Hazrat Nizamuddin boarding at Kadapa on 10-8-2015.  As seen from record the tickets were said to have been booked at New Delhi on               25-7-2015 with PNR No. 452-2709775.  Though at the time of verification by the Ticket Collector the complainant produced photocopy of ticket along with identity card but was unable to produce original travelling ticket.  Though it is said by the complainant that he was searching for original tickets in the luggage bags still he could not produced though he travelled till Dhone, which is at distance of four hours journey from Kadapa, where he boarded the train.   Even though the complainant is a senior citizen,  However, he was accompanied by his wife and daughter – in – law, and they could help him in search of tickets in luggage and trace them if really they carried the original tickets along with them.  As already noticed the tickets were booked at New Delhi and fax, photocopy ticket was sent to the complainant. If such is the case since, the complainant was not having original tickets so he produced only fax copy of tickets sent from New Delhi.  So having no option the ticket collector might have asked the complainant to purchase general ticket to regularize the same and allow the complainant to travel in the same bhogi berths.  In the above said circumstances the complainant purchased the tickets at Dhone station and paid the excess fare of Rs. 4,530/-.  So the ticket collector allowed the same berth in B2 coach.  There is no evidence placed by the complainant to show that the ticket collector behaved rudely, illegally, caused any humiliation to the complainant.   There is also no evidence to show that the ticket collector showed negligence and dereliction of his duties while checking the tickets of complainant.   It is mandatory on the part of the passengers that they should travel with the valid travelling authority i.e. tickets issued by the Railway authorities or by Railway authorized agents.   But in this case the complainant was not having the original travelling authority / tickets and shown the same to the ticket collector while travelling in the train inspite of given ample time from Kadapa to Dhone.  The act of ticket collector towards the complainant asking him to produce original ticket while travelling in the train does not amount to deficiency of service or negligence, carelessness and humiliation on the part of the respondent officials.  Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the ticket collector, while asking the complainant to produce his original travelling ticket in the train and no dereliction of duties by him.  Accordingly point No. 1 is answered against the complaint. 

12.            Point No. 2.   The complainant prayed this forum to direct the respondents to refund extra amount of Rs. 5,790/- collected by the respondents from the complainant, but as seen from the record the complainant himself purchased the tickets at Dhone as he was unable to produce the original tickets from Kadapa till Dhone station.  So he purchased the ticket at Dhone station to Hazrat Nizamuddin by paying Rs. 1,260/- as per Ex. A2 and paid Rs. 4,530/- as excess fare ticket under Ex. A3 receipt issued by the ticket collector and travelled in the same B-2 coach in the same berths till Hazrat Nizamuddin station.   So it cannot be said that the respondents collected tickets from complainant as arbitrarily.  Since, the complainant had not produced the original travelling tickets he purchased the tickets with excess amount.  So the respondents need not refund the amount of Rs. 5,790/- to the complainant. 

13.            Further the complainant claimed to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation and damages to the complainant but in point No. 1 we discussed at length and held no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents towards complainant and no humiliation and mental agony caused to the complainant by the ticket collector.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to the above amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and respondents are not liable to pay the same and also cost of Rs. 10,000/- as claimed by the complainant towards costs of this complaint.  Thus the complainant is not entitled to all the reliefs against the respondents and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, point No. 2 is answered against the complaint. 

14.            Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

          Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 6^th April 2016

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant:         NIL                                   For Respondents :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex. A1       Original ticket bearing No. 452-2709775, dt. 10-8-2015.

Ex. A2       Original general ticket bearing UTS No. E196BBR283, dt. 10-8-2015.

Ex. A3       Original excess fare ticket bearing No. 274957.

Ex. A4       Served copy of the complaint dt. 11-8-2015.

Ex. A5       Copy of the medical certificate issued by KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad and AIMS, New Delhi. 

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents: -         NIL  

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

Copy to 

1. Smt. I. Sarada, Advocate for complainant  
2. Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for respondents.

B.V.P