State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Neelesh Ku. Sharma vs Mandal Rail Prabandhak And Other'S on 16 April, 2019
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.740 /2009.
Neelesh Kumar Sharma,
s/o Shri Satish Nandan Sharma,
R/o "Nalanda Niwas",
Jail Ke pass, Ward No.10,
Shahdol, Tehsil Sohagpur,
Thana & District Shadol,
Madhya Pradesh. .... APPELLANT.
VERSUS
1. General Manager (G.M.),
Dakshin Poorv Madhya Railway,
Bilaspur (C.G.).
2. Mandal Rail Prabhandhak (D.R.M.),
Dakshin Poorv Madhya Railway,
Bilaspur (C.G.).
3. Mandal Vanijya Prabhandhak (D.C.M.)
Dakshin Poorv Madhya Railway,
Bilaspur (C.G.).
4. Mukhya Station Master,
Dakshin Poorv Madhya Railway,
Birsinghpur, District Umaria (M.P.).
5. Vanijya Nirikshak (C.I.),
Shahdol, Dakshin Poorv Madhya Railway,
Shahdol (M.P.).
6. Mukhya Ticket Parikshak,
Through S. K. Shukla (Ticket Nirikshak),
Western Central Railway, Katni (M.P.). .... RESPONDENTS.
- 2-
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :
SHRI ROHIT KUMAR SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.
SHRI RAJEEV JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS.
ORDER
(Passed on 16 /4/2019) The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shantanu S. Kemkar, J :
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shahdol (for short the "Forum") in CC No.21/2008 the appellant / complainant has filed this appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant before the Forum was that on 4.4.2008 he purchased a ticket of Mumbai Howrah train for travelling on 6.4.2008 from Birsinghpur Pali to Kiul Bihar, bearing train number as 2322. He was allotted Coach No. S/7 and berth No.13. He alleged that he was malafidely issued ticket bearing wrong train No.2322 whereas the correct number of the said train was 2358. He also alleged that he has been over charged and instead -3- of Rs.334/-, Rs.569/- were charged from him. According to him when he boarded the train he was asked to travel on berth No.11 in place of berth No.13 as berth No.13 which was allotted to him was also allotted to one Rashmi Agrawal. After one hour of the journey one gentleman claiming berth No.11 to have allotted to him asked the complainant to vacate berth No.11. When the complainant contacted to on duty TTE Sharad Kant Shukla making grievance of this incident, Sharad Kant Shukla, TTE abused and misbehaved with him. Having not allowed to travel either on berth No.13 or berth No.11 he had to travel standing near toilet upto Allahabad. When the train reached Allahabad he got down from it and by boarding another train and then reached to Lakhisaray along with one Udaybhan Pandey who was also travelling with him in the same Coach on berth No.14. Then he had to travel upto Kiul. He alleged that for travelling from Allahabad to Kiul he had to spend extra Rs.120/-. Thus alleging deficiency in service by issuing ticket with wrong train number, for not allowing him to travel on his reserved berth No.13 and even not allowing on the berth No.11 which was subsequently allotted to him and on complaint being made to TTE he had to suffer misbehavior of TTE as a result he had to get down and travel by another train causing physical & mental agony and inconvenience he lodged a written complaint and thereafter approached the Forum seeking compensation of Rs.45,791/- and Rs.500/- towards expenses.
- 4-
3. The respondents filed reply to the complaint and denied the allegations. According to the respondents on every Sunday the said Mumbai Howrah train goes via Patna and as such on Sunday's its number is 2358 whereas on all other days the same train number is given the number as 2322. The Booking Clerk on the basis of the reservation form filled by the complainant in which he had filled train number 2322, wrongly issued the ticket mentioning the said train number. Thus according to the respondents the mentioning of wrong number on the ticket by the booking clerk was firstly attributable due to wrong mentioning of train number by the complainant himself in reservation form and secondly, due to mistake of not noticing the fact by the Booking Clerk that 6.4.2008 was a Sunday. This mistake of booking clerk occurred due to manual preparation of ticket and is bonafide. The other allegations levelled by the appellant are denied. It was also denied that the complainant deboarded the train at Allahabad and thereafter travelled up to Kiul by another train.
4. Before the Forum parties led evidence by way of affidavit. The appellant submitted his affidavit and also submitted affidavit of Udaybhan Pandey, a co-passenger. In rebuttal the respondents filed affidavit of Afzal Kareem Shamsi, Varishtha Mandal Vanijya Prabhandhak, Dakshin Poorv Madhya Railway, Bilaspur, Prakash Tigga, Station Prabhandhak, Dakshin Poorv Madhya Railway, Birsinghpur, Manoj Yadav, Commercial Clerk, Dakshin Poorv Madhya Railway, Birsinghpur, V. P. Tiwari, Commercial Inspector, Dakshin Poorv Madhya Railway, Shahdol and Sharad Kant Shukla, Pradhan Ticket Collector.
- 5-
5. The Forum after appreciating the evidence led by the parties dismissed the complaint.
6. According to the appellant / complainant the Forum has committed error in holding that the appellant / complainant had failed to prove the deficiency in service. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
7. On going through the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties it is clear that the Mumbai Howrah train is known as train No.2322 on all days except Sunday. On Sunday since the said train goes through different route it is known and numbered as train No.2358. For other six days the train number is 2322. It is not in dispute that the complainant in his application for reservation has wrongly mentioned train number as 2322. The Forum on the basis of the wrong mentioning of the train number by the appellant / complainant in his reservation form held that there was no negligence on the part of the Booking Clerk in issuing ticket with the said wrong train number. This reasoning of the Forum cannot be accepted. We are of the view that mentioning of wrong train number by the complainant will not ipso facto give license or authority to the Booking Clerk to issue ticket containing the same incorrect train number. The Booking Clerk ought to have been vigilant while issuing the ticket which was
- 6- undisputedly for Sunday when the number of the said train is 2358. Thus, we observe that the booking clerk was negligent in issuing ticket with wrong train number. It appears that this deficiency in issuing wrong ticket number on the ticket of the appellant / complainant has created further confusion while preparing the chart for allotment of berths and the berth number 13 which was allotted to the appellant was also allotted to other passenger viz. Rashmi Agrawal. Thus the deficiency on the part of the Booking Clerk in issuing ticket with wrong ticket number cannot be ignored or brushed aside by saying that the appellant / complainant himself has given wrong train number in the reservation form.
8. So far as the appellant's / complainant's contention that after the change of berth from 13 to 11 he occupied berth No.11, but after about one hour he was asked by someone to vacate the said berth, has not been supported by the complainant by any reliable evidence. It is pertinent to mention that in the written complaint dated 26.4.2008 made by the complainant to various Authorities of the respondents no such averments / allegations have been made. In regard to misbehaviour by Sharad Kant Shukla, TTE and the complainant's getting down at Allahabad and then travelling by another mode of transport / train no mention find place in the said written complaint dated 26.4.2008. The complainant also did not file any ticket / evidence in support of his contention that
- 7- he had travelled by another train from Allahabad to Kiul after deboarding the train at Allahabad. Though he has filed affidavit of Udaybhan Pandey who has filed the ticket of himself for travelling from Allahabad to Parasnath, but that ticket will not support the appellant's / complainant's case that he had also travelled by another train from Allahabad. In the affidavit of Sharad Kant Shukla, TTE in para 7 he had categorically denied the complainant's allegations that he was asked to vacate berth number 11 by some one, and that the complainant had approached to him raising grievance in this regard or that he had to travel upto Allahabad standing near latrine. He also stated that he was working as TTE on the said train up to Allahabad in the said train in Coach No. S/7. He stated that berth number 11 was allotted only to the appellant. He also stated that train was interconnected and the appellant / complainant did not make any complaint either to him or to any other TTE. On the contrary he had stated that after the allotment of berth number 11 in place of berth number 13 the appellant / complainant travelled comfortably on berth No.11 and did not make any grievance.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid evidence we are of the view that the Forum has committed no error in holding that the appellant had travelled on berth number 11 upto his destination and has failed to prove any inconvenience caused to him or misbehaviour by the staff of the respondents. He also failed to prove that he was asked to vacate the berth No.11 and was misbehaved by
- 8- Sharad Kant Shukla, TTE. We also find that on the ticket itself the correction about fare was made and as such the appellant cannot make any grievance that he was overcharged. Even otherwise there is no evidence that the appellant had paid Rs.569/- in place of Rs.334/- as we find that Rs.569/- though written on the ticket initially but has been scored by the Booking Clerk and the figure of Rs.334/- is mentioned. In the result, we find that the allegation to that effect has also properly been dealt with by the Forum and needs no interference.
10. However as stated above we find the deficiency in service is committed by the Booking Clerk in issuing ticket with wrong train number and this has caused further inconvenience to the appellant / complainant as he was not allowed to sit on berth number 13 allotted to him as the same berth was allotted to other passenger viz. Rashmi Agrawal. Thus, in our considered view for this deficiency in service the appellant complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,000/- from the respondents.
11. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, the appeal stands partly allowed. The appellant is also entitled for cost of appeal of Rs.2000/-.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (Dr.Monika Malik)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke