National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Virinder Kumar on 22 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: II(2007)CPJ285(NC), AIR 2007 (NOC) 2158 (NCC) (N.C.D.R.C., NEW DELHI), 2007 (5) ALJ (NOC) 873 (NCC) (N. C. D. R. C., NEW DELHI)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. The complainant Virender Kumar is the holder of monthly season ticket from Jalandhar to Ludhiana. On 18.8.1998 he boarded at Jalandhar Cantt. train No. 2926 Dn. Deluxe III A.C. His MST pass was valid up to 26.8.1998. He was also possessing supplementary charge ticket for Rs. 30 also known as superfast charge purchased from Railway Station, Jalandhar Cantt. During the journey at the outskirts of Phagwara City TTE came to him for checking the ticket, who was shown the first class MST pass and the supplementary charge ticket. The TTE treated the complainant as a ticketless passenger and the penalty of Rs. 390 was collected from him. Therefore, he filed a complaint claiming several reliefs.
2. The District Forum after hearing the parties accepted the complaint and directed the opposite parties viz., General Manager, Divisional Manager and Daljeet Singh, Northern Railways to refund Rs. 390 which had been illegally charged and awarded consolidated damages of Rs. 10,000 with Rs. 2,000 as costs.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dated 8.7.1999 the opposite parties filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab which dismissed the same with the observation that "the opposite parties have failed to establish that the complainant was not entitled to travel in superfast train by making the payment of superfast charges. The action of the opposite parties to treat the complainant as ticketless passenger was wrong and illegal".
4. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission the opposite parties have filed this revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners drew our attention to the extracts of the time table which was filed by him as an Annexure 'D' to the revision petition wherein it is mentioned "Season ticket holders are not permitted to travel in reserved coaches and trains governed by distance restrictions". Further he submitted that the train in which the complainant was travelling was a fully reserved coach and he has no authority to travel in that. He also drew our attention to Annexure 'H' attached to the petition which is the correspondence between Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Firozpur and various Station Masters etc. wherein it was clarified that First Class season ticket holders are not permitted to travel in AC Chair Car. Further, he brought to our notice at Annexure 'I' attached to the petition wherein it is mentioned "Restriction on season ticket holders by certain mail/express trains over Northern Railway will not carry passengers".
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant boarded the train No. 2926 at Jalandhar which was coming from Amritsar and terminating at Ludhiana. Accordingly, the TTE had rightly charged Rs. 390 as penalty for the journey, according to rules, from the original point to the final destination of the train.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent submitted that both the Fora below have given concurrent findings in favour of the complainant. He further submitted that the railway authorities could not prove their case by filing the documents the lower Fora in support of their contention. He quoted certain portions of the order of the State Commission to prove his contention that the TTE had wrongly treated the complainant as a ticketless passenger and imposed penalty despite holding a season ticket coupled with supplementary charge ticket for superfast train.
Findings:
8. Undisputedly, the complainant was holding an MST First Class pass for travel between Jalandhar and Ludhiana and that pass was in currency. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had purchased a supplementary ticket for travelling in superfast train by paying Rs. 30 at Jalandhar Cantt. Railway Station before boarding the said train. There is no record to prove that the restrictions imposed on season ticket travellers brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, were printed either on the obverse or reverse of the season ticket pass. There is also no proof adduced before us or the lower Fora to show that any such restrictions were brought to the notice of the season pass holders at the time of purchase of the season ticket orally or in writing. Coming to the documents filed by the petitioner, one of them is purely an internal communication between the two officers of the Northern Railway. Further, if at all there was some restriction for travel in other trains, governed by the distance restriction, to obviate this lacuna complainant had taken pains to purchase a ticket for travelling in superfast train by paying a supplementary charge of Rs. 30. It is also not in dispute that the TTE was shown the monthly season pass for travelling in first class and also the super charge ticket. Despite this, he went ahead and slapped on the complainant a penalty of Rs. 390. After all he has travelled only in a 3 tier AC. It is also an admitted fact that the fare of AC Chair Car and 3 Tier AC is lower than the First Class MST.
9. The State Commission has observed that the opposite parties also failed to produce the extract from the ticket checking manual or other record to show as to which were the trains for which MST 1st Class was issued and the complainant could travel in which trains by buying the superfast ticket and what were the rules regarding issue of superfast ticket.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, treating the complainant as ticketless amounts to deficiency in service and was rightly held so by the lower Fora. Accordingly, we do not see any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the lower Fora warranting interference under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.