State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, ... vs S. Krishna Rao, on 18 January, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA, CUTTACK First Appeal No. A/242/2012 ( Date of Filing : 01 May 2012 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District ) 1. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road, Jatni, Dist- Khurda. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. S. Krishna Rao, S/o- Sri S. Somnath, Bali Nolia Sahi, Sea Beach, Dist- Puri. 2. Unni Krishanan S/o- Late Kutta Ppan, S/o- Late Kutta Ppan,Biju Bas, bikash Building No.15, Opp. to signed Dippo, Mumbai 3. Harra Lal Goyal, S/o- Late Ram Brish, S/o- Late Kutta Ppan,Biju Bas, bikash Building No.15, Opp. to signed Dippo, Mumbai. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER PRESENT: Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty, Advocate for the Appellant 1 Dated : 18 Jan 2023 Final Order / Judgement
Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. Captioned appeal is filed under Section 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the appellant is that the complainants were returning from Berhampur by bus and arrived at Bhubaneswar Railway Station at about 5.15 A.M. for visiting Puri. After enquiry, they came to know that Howrah-Puri Express Train no. 2837 will be available at about 6.00 A.M. and accordingly they purchased Railway Ticket bearing no. 34777058 by paying Rs. 78/- for three adult persons. The Ticket discloses that they have to start their journey in second class of Mail Express but they travelled in the general compartment of Superfast Mail Express. At Puri Railway Station, the ticket examiner examined the ticket of the complainants and directed for payment of Rs.27/- towards fare and Rs.750/- towards fine. Finding no other alternative, the complainants paid Rs.777/-. When the complainants protested, the ticket examiner did not give any receipt and thereafter the complainants filed the complaint.
4. The case of the opposite party is that the complainants have suppressed the material facts because they have purchased the ticket to travel in a Mail Express but they travelled in a Superfast Mail Express train. Moreover, the opposite party averred that the ticket does not authorize the complainants in the train they travelled. Therefore, the ticket examiner demanded the fine from the complainants under the Railway Act. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
5. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties passed the following order:-
" Thus the complaint is allowed in part on contest in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs. The O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.750/- to the complainant along with Rs.2500/- ( Rupees Two Thousand five hundred)only towards compensation for mental agony and harassment occasioned to the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of this order."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complaint is not maintainable. There is also no cause of action, but learned District Forum has committed errors in not following the provisions under the Railways Act. It is admitted fact that the Complainants have travelled in the general compartment of Superfast Mail Express instead of Mail Express.
7. We have considered the material facts and perused the record of learned District Forum including the impugned order. We are inclined with the submission made by the appellant because, the complainants having purchased ticket to travel in the Mail Express cannot travel in the Superfast Mail Express. Apart from that the Ticket Examiner imposed fine as per the rules and regulation of the Railway. It is for the higher authority to hear objection of complainant if any, but in this case, there is no appeal by the complainant before the authority. So Consumer complaint is not maintainable. So the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
8. In the result, there is complete error in the impugned order of the learned District Forum and as such, the impugned order is set aside.
The Appeal is thus allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.] MEMBER [HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik] MEMBER