State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Divisional Commercial Manager vs K. Sreelesh on 30 September, 2015
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 63/14 JUDGMENT DTD: 30/09/15 (Against the order in CC No.226/11 on the file of CDRF, Kannur, dtd:05/12/13) PRESENT SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER APPELLANT The Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Palaghat Division, Palakkad - 678002 (By Adv.Sri.S.Renganathan) Vs. RESPONDENT K. Sreelesh, S/o. Rethi, Kottali House, Azheekkal. P.O., Kannur. (By Adv. Sri.A.S. Deepu) JUDGMENT
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur on 05/12/2013 in CC No.226/11. The appellants were the opposite parties in the Ld. Forum below who preferred this appeal against the order, directing the appellants to return the fine amount of Rs.340/- (Rupees Three hundred and forty only) paid by the respondent to appellant and an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost to be paid to the respondent.
2. The facts are that the respondent holds '1st class season ticket' to travel by railways and on 10/09/2010 respondent was fined for Rs.340/- on the ground that he had entered into second class sleeper coach, based on preexisting norms that season ticket holders are not permitted to travel in reserved coaches. The appellants argue that the respondent was politely requested to move to unreserved coach as there is no first class compartment on the said train, to which the respondent got angry and insisted to give him a specific seat equal to first class facility. As per the statements of respondent, he only approached and requested for accommodation to which the appellant got angry and asked to pay Rs.5,000/- as fine as he entered second class. Thereafter respondent was handed over to Railway Protection Force without collecting any amount. At Kannur respondent had to pay Rs.340/- as fare and penalty and was issued EFT No.705525 for the amount collected by the Ticket Examiner working in the information centre.
3. The respondent approached the Ld. Forum below stating that the appellants conducted deficiency in service and prayed for relief such as refund of the amount paid and compensation.
4. The Ld. Form below noted that in accordance to appellants argument that the provision given does not permit respondent to enter any of the reserved coaches holding season tickets irrespective of any class as per the existing rules in force. The appellants pointed out that the said rule has been clearly mentioned on the ticket issued to them and in accordance to Ext.A5(a) is the First Class Super Fast Season Ticket No.3131 issued to respondent for a period from 17/08/2010 to 16/09/2010 and Ext.A5(b) is the Super Fast Sleeper Class Ticket No.277. Guide line to passengers in Ext.A5 (a) item number 6 specifically states thus: "Not permitted to travel in reserved coaches". So also in Ext.A5 (b) item number 2, it is made clear thus: "Not permitted to travel in reserved coaches. However Ld. Forum below accepted the fact that as a matter of fact respondent is not legally entitled to travel in a reserved coach also conjoined that in accordance to them it also does not mean that under no circumstances a season ticket holder is permitted to travel in a reserved coach. The Ld. Forum below came to a conclusion that on close observation of rules explained reveals that a season ticket holder is only restricted to enter in reserved coaches but not prohibited from entering based on their findings. For the same, reference was given to Ext.B3 that a season ticket holder is entitled to travel even in reserved coaches under certain occasions subjected to distance restrictions applicable on the concerned train and under explanation to Super Fast Surcharge Ticket in Ext.B3 provides that "wherever permitted by Railway administration, the passenger can travel in reserved coaches of superfast trains also and in such a case, he is required to purchase the superfast surcharge ticket for each journey in advance. Ext.A5 (b) proves that complainant was holding Superfast ticket and Ext. B3 also made explanation that superfast surcharge will however not be levied on season ticket holder travelling by those Super fast trains, which has total journey less than 325 Kms, from train originating to destination station. The Ld. Forum noted that Ext.B2 cannot be considered as a genuine document and hence the appellants did not prove that the seat occupied by the respondent was actually reserved for some other person, thus concluding that the appellants failed to prove the reservation chart. The Forum considered that the officer in charge in a way is bount to pacify the passengers who unfortunately lost their first class facility due to non-accommodation of first class compartment along with the train and is also pertinent to note that there was no notice of non-availability of 1st class compartment before or after purchasing the ticket. IF there is no answer for the non-availability of expected accommodation the concerned officials should act in such a way creating an impression that he was co-operating with the passengers to find a way out, failure of which can only be considered as failure of fruitful implementation of rules and regulations concerned intended for the benefit of the passengers. The Forum noted the appellants failed to prove the reasonable cause for which respondent was handed over to RPF. There is bounden duty on the part of Railway authority to make explanation that there were proper adjustment of accommodation for passengers and the performance of duty on their part carried out properly so as to minimize the difficulties suffered by passengers out of the inability to provide first class coach to that train. All these facts taken together the Ld. Forum concluded that there is deficiency in service on the part of appellants.
5. We heard both the sides and verified the documents presented on records. On verifying the exhibits it is noted that Ext.A5(a) is the First Class Super Fast Season Ticket No.3131 issued to respondent for a period from 17/08/2010 to 16/09/2010 andExt.A5(b) is the Super Fast Sleeper Class Ticket No.277issued on 19/07/2012 at 19:09 hrs for travelling between Kanhangad to Kannur. As on observation of Ext.A5(b) other than noting the distance between the two stations and ticket fare, the ticket has nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. From the facts it is accepted beyond doubts that the respondent hold a 1st class season ticket to travel between Kanhangad to Kannur and on 10/09/2010 the respondent boarded in Train no.2686 Mangalore - Chennai Super Fast Express from Kozhikode/Kanhagad. There is no objection also as to the fact that the respondent entered a reserved compartment of second class sleeper and on examination by the TTE, the same was verified and respondent was asked to move to a unreserved compartment and also the said train did not had a first class compartment. From the facts and as pointed out in the detailed judgment of the lower Forum it is clear and evident that a person possessing 1st class season ticket is not allowed to travel in a reserved second class compartment. The incidents are the prima facie reasons for the Id forum's conclusion as to the agreement that the appellant had caused deficiency in service.
6. The Ext.A5 (a) is a specimen season ticket wherein condition No.6 reads thus: "Not permitted to travel in Reserved Coaches" and it could be understood that the respondent as aware of this condition as he had been using the ticket for his travel for umpteen numbers of times. The reasoning that respondent started shouting or the appellant started shouting or behaved arrogantly as raised as concerns by both appellant and respondent pleading is a matter of least importance. Ext.A1 which is the receipt (705525) issued to the respondent clearly specifies that it is the excess fare ticket for travelling in sleeper class with first class ticket from Kozhikode to Kannur on 10/09/2010 and an amount of Rs.340/- is been charged.
7. Ext.B3 Indian Railway Conference Association Coaching Tariff, Part 1 (Volume 1) clause 242.1 deals with season tickets sub clause (iv) states Validity: "Season tickets are not valid for travel in reserved coaches and trains. They are valid for travel by passenger trains. In the case of Mail/Express/Superfast trains, they are valid for travel by only for those Mail/Express/Superfast trains where it has specifically been permitted by the Railway administration. However they are valid for travel subject to the distance restriction otherwise applicable in individual train. The first class season ticket holders are, however, allowed to travel in first class coaches during day time only, subject to the distance restrictions applicable on the concerned trains." In this case this clause has been interpreted by the Ld. Forum below so as to explain the condition that the passenger is not completely restricted from travelling in reserved coaches based on distance restriction. The facts clearly states that the said train did not have first class compartment and while reading the above clause relating to the same clearly restricts the respondent even from entering the train unless the train has been given special exemption by the railway authority by means of circular or other means in practice, the TTE also is not under the liberty of permitting the same. Hence we understand in accordance to the said clause the respondent is clearly restricted to travel in a reserved coach with the first class season ticket. While referring sub clause (vi) superfast surcharge ticket it states: "Wherever permitted by the railway administration" the passenger can travel in unreserved coaches of superfast trains also. In such case, he is required to purchase the superfast surcharge ticket for each journey in advance." The alleged train where the respondent travelled does not fall under the permitted category. Hence in accordance to provisions contained in the said act it is clear that the respondent was traveling illegally with a first class season ticket on the particular day in the said train.
8. Ext.B4 the Railways Act, 1989 provisions mentions about on removing persons who are travelling without valid travel documents and in this case appellant asking the Railway police assistance is clearly an act prescribed or vested on him by the said act and its provisions. We find that the respondent being charged with excess fare ticket for his travel is genuine and not against rules.
9. We would like to note that season ticket holders are issued these season tickets on concession rates and subject to certain conditions and terms which both parties have to comply. The most prevalent conditions is that the holder of the season ticket must be deemed to have agreed that the railway administration is at liberty in issuing conditions for the travel with the season tickets. Therefore considered as an unexpressed understanding between the two parties the terms under which the season ticket has been issued will govern the relations between the parties and construed from the point of view, the ticket holder cannot enforce any liability against the railway administration if he suffers by reason of his act or even to the extent to the unavailability of accommodating the person in such trains, unless the person carry a valid ticket for travelling in a specific train issued by the authority.
10. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Railway First Class Season Ticket Vs. Union of India in WP( C) No.5711 of 2012 in para 10 have clearly submitted that "There is no illegality in the prescriptions of Ext.P1. The prescription that they can travel only in those sections where first class unreserved coaches are running is not at all arbitrary or illegal or ultra vires. The persons who have reserved tickets will have to be protected and their problems also will have to be addressed by the Railways." In the above case the Hon'ble High Court has clearly explained the reasons why Railway authority imposes such restriction and the authority responsibility towards reserved passengers. The Ld. Forum below stated that the reservation chart submitted by the appellant does not suffice the requirement in proving that the said seat/berth occupied by the respondent was actually been reserved for any passengers. The fact is thus, that an act committed by the respondent which is against the provisions or provided norms, will not get a protection to some other facts which is irrelevant for consideration. The respondent who was in need to travel on the same train was required to book a ticket in advance as per conditions or could have moved to unreserved compartment when found it was a reserved compartment and rather demanding to TTE to provide an alternative seating. Prima facie the respondent did not qualify to travel in second class sleeper compartment with a first class season ticket and hence he cannot make a claim of benefit which he is not entitled for. TTE as discussed earlier is only an authorized person in verifying tickets and issuing such alternatives which comes under his purview of responsibilities and authority. There are many other passengers in a train and it is not feasible for TTE to attend each and single person's grievance and especially of persons who are travelling without a valid travel document. It is evident that the TTE had acted on behalf of other reserved passengers in the train and he cannot be blamed for not aiding a single passenger, the respondent who is not entitled to travel with the season ticket he was in possession.
11. The railway authority based on the overall interest and convenience of all its passengers would have brought such restriction and as pleaded by the appellant the direction given by the Ld. Forum below will give wrong implications about the conditions of season ticket holder, which would affect the basic regulations imposed by the Railways authority in accordance to season tickets. Hence in the light of the above points we find that there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and the Ld. Forum below has erred in concluding the same.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, to set aside the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur on 5/12/2013 in CC No.226/2011.
SANTHAMMA THOMAS: MEMBER K.CHANDRADAS NADAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER A. RADHA : MEMBER nb KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 63/14 JUDGMENT DTD: 30/09/15 nb