State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India vs Karnail Singh, on 18 December, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1170 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 05.07.2010.
Date of Decision: 18.12.2012.
1. Union of India, Northern Railway, through its Divisional Railway
Manager, DRM Office, Northern Railway, Ferozepur Cantt.
2. Pawan Kumar, TCR, C/o Divisional Railway Manager, DRM Office,
Northern Railway, Ferozepur Cantt.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Karnail Singh, aged 63 years, S/o Sh. Gurdeep Singh, R/o H.No.104, Model
Town, Ferozepur.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
04.05.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, counsel for the appellants.
Sh. Charanjeet Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
Union of India, Northern Railway & another, appellants (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 04.05.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Karnail Singh, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants, pleading that on 07.02.2010, he along with Amb Singh and Pritam Singh, all residents of Ferozepur had to go to Delhi for some urgent First Appeal No.1170 of 2010 2 domestic work and they got the up and down tickets in Punjab Mail from Ferozepur to New Delhi for 7/8-2-2010 from New Delhi to Ferozepur Cantt and for 8/9-2-2010 and berth no.1,2 & 4 were reserved in Coach No. S-6 for journey from Ferozepur to New Delhi and seats no.1, 2 & 4 were reserved in coach no.S-10 for journey from New Delhi to Ferozepur Cantt.
3. On 09.02.2010, when the respondent and the above said persons came back to Ferozepur at Railway Station, Ferozepur Cantt, the complainant was coming behind Amb Singh and Pritam Singh and the ticket was in possession of Amb Singh, who crossed the main gate of the railway station and the respondent stopped as some known person met him. In the meantime, Amb Singh handed over the ticket to appellant no.2 and Amb Singh and Pritam Singh crossed the gate, but when the respondent tried to cross the gate, appellant no.2 stopped the respondent and asked him for the ticket. The respondent told him that they have one combined ticket which was with Amb Singh, who has already handed over the same to appellant no.2, but appellant no.2 stated that the respondent is without ticket and he will have to pay the fine as per the railway department, as he has performed the journey without ticket. Amb Singh came back and requested appellant no.2 that he has handed over the ticket to him just a moment ago, but appellant no.2 did not agree. Amb Singh and Pritam Singh both requested appellant no.2 to check his record, but appellant no.2 refused to do so and humiliated and insulted the respondent and asked him to pay the fine of Rs.350/-. The respondent was left with no alternative except to pay the amount of Rs.350/- and appellant no.2 issued the receipt dated 09.02.2010.
4. Appellant no.2 acted in cross negligence and without checking the record, fined the respondent which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Due to the illegal act of the appellants, the reputation of the respondent was lowered in the eyes of the general public. The respondent suffered a lot of mental pain and harassment. First Appeal No.1170 of 2010 3
5. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to refund Rs.350/- charged from the respondent and to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
6. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellants, preliminary objections were raised that the complaint is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the respondent and is liable to the dismissed. No cause of action has ever accrued and the respondent has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The true facts are that on 09.02.2010 at the time of arrival of train no.2137, appellant no.2, who is a railway servant under appellant no.2, was on duty at main gate, Ferozepur Cantt. Railway Station for general checking of the passengers. During checking, appellant no.2 found that one passenger Amb Singh along with two persons crossed the main gate by surrendering the ticket of three persons to appellant no.2. After some time, the respondent came and he was asked by appellant no.2 to show/surrender the ticket, but the respondent failed to show any ticket to appellant no.2 and replied that his ticket has been given to appellant no.2 by his companion Amb Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that by showing/surrendering the ticket in question, Amb Singh along with two other persons had already crossed the main gate. As per railway rules, if a person cannot show the ticket on general checking, then he is liable to be charged as without ticket. There is no provision to check the reservation record by general checking staff. It is the duty of every passengers or co-passenger to keep the ticket in possession or in joint possession and to show whenever the railway servant asks and in the event of failure, such a person is liable to be charged as per railway rules as well as u/s 54 of the Railway Act. The appellant no.2 rightly charged Rs.100+250=350. The District Forum has no jurisdiction.
7. On merits, it was submitted that as per the record, the berth no.1, 2 & 4 were booked in S-10 coach in the name of Karnail Singh, Amb Singh and Pritam Singh in train no.2137 up of 08.02.2010 and 09.02.2010 and the record of the reservation charts remained with the coach manned First Appeal No.1170 of 2010 4 TTE and not with every TTE, who remained on general duty. Other similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were raised and denying the allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
8. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that appellant no.2 had sufficient opportunity to check the record of the railways, especially when the passenger insisted that he had travelled on a valid ticket and the record was very much available with the railway authorities, but instead of verifying the records, appellant no.2 imposed fine upon the respondent. The respondent was harassed and humiliated and the complaint was allowed and the appellants were directed to refund Rs.350/- charged from the respondent and appellant no.1 was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment.
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.05.2010, the appellants have come up in appeal.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. The respondent Karnail Singh along with Amb Singh and Pritam Singh travelled from Ferozepur to Delhi and Delhi to Ferozepur Cantt. as per the averments made in the complaint. After arriving at Ferozepur Cantt., Amb Singh and Pritam Singh passed through the gate, whereas respondent Karnail Singh was caught by appellant no.2, having no ticket and on his failure to produce any ticket, he was asked to pay a fine of Rs.350/- which was paid by the respondent. Through this complaint, the respondent has sought the refund of the ticket amount as well as compensation for mental First Appeal No.1170 of 2010 5 tension and harassment. The District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to refund Rs.350/- charged from the respondent and appellant no.1 was further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
13. The order of the District Forum has been challenged by the appellants on the grounds that the District Forum had no jurisdiction and authority to decide the complaint and the order passed by the District Forum is illegal.
14. The District Forum while passing the impugned order under appeal altogether lost sight of Section 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunals Act as well as section 15 of the said Act. The jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal has been explained U/s 13 of the above Act and the relevant portion of Section-13 is reproduced as follows:-
"13.Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Claims Tribunal-(1) The claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, powers and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any civil Court or a Claims Commissioner appointed under the provisions of the Railways Act-
-----------------------
-----------------------
(b) in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway".
15. The above provision of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act clearly defines that the jurisdiction and powers of the Railway Tribunal are in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or goods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. Thus, the refund of fares is covered U/s 13 of the said Act and Section-15 bars the jurisdiction. Hon'ble National Commission in case "Southern Railway Vs Stalin Herald", IV (2012) CPJ-634 (NC), after quoting the above provisions of Sections 13 and 15 of the said act, held that First Appeal No.1170 of 2010 6 consumer court is barred to entertain the complaint as per section 13(1) (a) and section 15 of the Act, 1987. In the above authority, the matter relating to section 13 (1) (a) was under consideration, whereas in the present case, the matter is covered u/s 13 (1) (b) and, as such, the jurisdiction of the consumer court is totally barred and the order passed by the District Forum is against the law and is not sustainable.
16. In view of above discussion as well as the law laid down, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 04.05.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
17. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.5175/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.12.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member December 18, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)