State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Union Of India,Southern ... vs Pallab Chakraborthy,Siliguri, ... on 28 September, 2010
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Tmt. Vasugi Ramanan, M.A.,B.L., MEMBER I Thiru S. Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.NO.515/2007 (Against order in CC.NO.320/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South) DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 1.
Union of India Southern Railway Rep.
by its General Manager Chennai 600 003
2. The Chief Commercial Manager Southern Railway Chennai 600 003 Appellants/Opposite parties Vs. Pallab Chakraborthy Rep. by his Power of Attorney Agent Bijoy Krishna Chakraborthy Renukuthi Mill, Rath Khola Rabindra Savai P.O., Siliguri, Darjeeling-734 006 Respondents/Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants /opposite parties, praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation and to refund Rs.4000/- and also a sum of Rs.10000/- as expenses. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.10.8.2007 in COP No.320/2005.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 16.09.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, this commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite parties: Mr. T.N. Ramachandran, Advocate Respondent/ Complainant: Mr. A.S. Narasimhan, Advocate M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite parties having suffered an adverse order, in the hands of District Forum, Chennai (North), in CC.No.320/2005 dt.30.8.2007, have come to this commission for redressal.
2. The complainant/respondent, alongwith his wife, had come to Vellore, to undergo treatment in CMC Hospital, and thereafter, purchasing tickets, under Takkal scheme, returned to their native place on 12.5.2004, in Train No.2842, from Chennai to Howrah. On the way, two TTEs came, checked the tickets, demanded the Idendity, which was shown by the complainant, as indicated in the ticket itself. But TTEs refused to see the original for verification, and making endorsement, as if ID card not produced, compelled the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.4000/-, claiming the charge, and issued receipt also.
The complainant was also constrained to pay the amount, apprehending problems, as well not to create unwarranted scene.
3. On reaching the native place, the complainant reported the matter to the higher authorities, including Railway Minister, which has not yielded any positive result, in getting back the amount collected by the TTE unauthorisedly, thereby causing mental agony. At one point of time, reporting, as if they have collected Rs.66/- excessively, admitted to refund the same, which was refused, which itself would show the deficiency committed by the opposite parties employees, for which the opposite parties should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation, for the deficiency of service, in addition to refund of Rs.4000/- collected.
4. The opposite parties, admitting the travel of the complainant, and his wife, in train No.2824, on 12.8.2004, as well the collection of the amount by the TTE, interalia contended that the complainant failed to show the ID card, when demanded, which is mandatory, if a takkal ticket had been purchased, for the non-showing of the ID card, treating as unauthorized passenger, amount was collected, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service, that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case, because of the bar, available under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, and that since there was no deficiency of any kind or negligence, the opposite party is not at all liable to pay any compensation, much less, liable to refund the amount. Thus it is prayed the claim may be dismissed with cost.
5. The District Forum, considering the rival contentions, as well as the various correspondences, between the complainant and Railway, including the provisions available in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act deduced the conclusions Viz. that there is no bar under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, since claim is made for deficiency, committed by the employees of the Railways, that the TTEs have committed deficiency, thereby warranting mental agony to the complainant, unnecessarily collecting amount, for which they should be dealt with accordingly.
In this view, allowing the complaint, a direction has been issued, to pay a sum of Rs.50000/-, as compensation, as per order dt.30.8.2007, which is under challenge.
6. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side, perused the written arguments of the appellant, documents, lower court records as well as the order passed by the District Forum carefully.
7. The learned counsel for appellants, in order to upset the findings of the District Forum, mainly urged before us three grounds, (1) that the complainant having purchased the ticket under Takkal scheme, failed to produce the ID card, when demanded by TTE, (2) that under the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, there is a bar, ousting the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, and (3) that when there was no deficiency of any kind, slapping an order by the District Forum, is erroneous.
8. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant, that as recorded by the District Fora, ID was shown on demand, which cannot be faulted, that the bar of jurisdiction will not be applicable, when deficiency alleged, and considering all these facts, the District Forum passed an appropriate order, which is liable to be confirmed.
9. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, perusing the provisions available under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, as well as the claim made in the complaint, which are interconnected, not separable, we are of the firm view, that the District Forum has committed error of jurisdiction, assuming jurisdiction in itself, thereby further committed granting compensation, which requires to be upset, by our unavoidable interference.
10. The prayer in the complaint, is not only for the recovery of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, as compensation for deficiency in service, alleging anyother deficiency, except misbehaviour of the TTE, as well for the refund of the sum of Rs.4000/-, collected by the TTE, though they had possessed valid ticket for travel. If the conduct of the TTE, in collecting a sum of Rs.4000/-, even assuming incorrect, to refund that amount, the Forum has no jurisdiction, which we will discuss infra. If the refund is not permissible legally, then the question of deficiency may not arise, because the deficiency is alleged, as if the TTE had collected unnecessary amount, from them, though they possessed valid ticket.
In this view alone, we said, compensation, based upon alleged deficiency, as well as refund of ticket amount are interconnected, inseparable, and having this position, now we have to see the provisions of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, which was not considered properly, by the District Forum.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant, drew our attention to Sec.13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, where we find, creation of Claims Tribunal, its jurisdiction, bar of jurisdiction vested with the Claims Tribunal.
12. Sec.13 (b), gives power to Claims Tribunal, and one of such power is, to decide the refund of fare also, which reads in respect of claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals orgoods entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway. Here, as pointed out supra, refund of Rs.4000/-, paid as fare, whether collected legally or otherwise, claimed by the complainant, which should come squarely under Sec.13(b) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987. Therefore, it could be said with certainity, that Claims Tribunal alone can decide the question of refund. But in view of Sec.3 of the Consumer Protection Act, additional remedy is also given to the consumer, to have relief, despite the fact certain reliefs are available under certain other Acts. If that alone is the case, certainly we will not say, we do not have jurisdiction.
But when the said Act, such as Railway Claims Tribunal Act 1987, which should have the dominant role, as special Act, than the common Act, viz. Consumer Protection Act. When the special Act bars other courts or tribunal or forum, ousting jurisdiction, then the Consumer Forum should keep silent and it should not unnecessarily enter into the field of Claims Tribunal, which could be seen from the reading of Sec.15, which says On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in (sub sections (1 ) and 1-A) of Sec.13, thereby indicating the other authority, including the Consumer Forum, is prevented or barred from exercising the jurisdiction, conferred upon the Claims Tribunal. As stated above, regarding the refund, which is connected with deficiency in this case. This point was considered by the Rajasthan State Commission in Jain Narain Vs. North Western Railway reported in IV (2009) CPJ 137, which is applicable to the present case also. Therefore we hold unhesitatingly, that the consumer forum, has no jurisdiction, which should follow the order of the District Forum, is unsustainable one, being without jurisdiction, liable to be set aside as non est. Assuming that, for the deficiency (cannot be so) the Consumer Forum will have jurisdiction, we have to see the case on merit also.
14. As seen from Ex.A1, the complainant, showing identity card, having No.8903, i.e., driving license, as reported (Ex.A3), purchased the ticket in Takkal.
It is also an admitted fact, as seen from Ex.B2, that the passenger must carrythe same travel authority in original during travel. In case he is unable to produce the same, he will be treated as traveling without ticket and penalized as per rules, as and when the Railway authorities viz. TTE, while checking, demanded ID, the original should be shown, failing to produce, the passenger will be treated as traveling without ticket, and this position is not disputed, which is also the decision in the Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondichery in G.Shankar Vs. Additional General Manager, and another reported in IV (2006) CPJ 333.
15. There is no strained relationship between the TTE, who checked the complainants ticket, or anyother enemity. . This being the position, if the complainant had shown, the original ID card, we do not find or imagine, any reason by the TTE to reject or refuse to see the same, demanding the fare from Chennai to Howrah. It is not the case that the TTE, collected the amount not issuing receipt or he pocketed the amount for himself. Admittedly, he has issued receipt, wherein it is noted, ID not produced. In the absence of showing of original ID, the employees of the Railway, had collected the fare, treating as ticket less traveler, in which we are unable to find any fault.
16. The learned counsel for complainant, would submit, that the complainant had shown the original driving license, while obtaining the ticket, then traveled from Chennai to Howrah, and naturally they should have carried the same ID, and the contention of the opposite party, original ID was not shown, when demanded is highly improbable. We are unable to find any logic in this submission. It appears, the complainant had been to Vellore, to take treatment, because of their relative is there, or something like that. There is no certainty or any presumption, that they should have carried the original license, alongwith them or assuming they carried, they had shown to the TTE.
Even they might have misplaced, or questioned the conduct of the TTE, under what authority he is demanding the ID or something like that, for which we do not have any elaborate evidence.
We do not find any reason, to discard the reason, available in Ex.A1, which prima-facie makes out a case, that original ID was not shown. Therefore, it is for the complainant to prove, that he had shown the ID, and inspite of that they have collected the excess amount, which they are not entitled.
Having failed to do so, any number of letters written to the Railways or higher authorities, will not cure the defects, committed by the complainant, which was not properly considered by the District Forum, in our considered opinion. Even assuming, the case of the complainant must be true, in view of the bar of jurisdiction also, as recorded by us early, the Forum has no jurisdiction.
In this view, the deficiency alleged also remain as dead letters, not warranting any compensation. For these reasons, the appeal deserves to be accepted.
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC No.320/2005 dt.30.8.2007, and the complaint is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost, throughout.
Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made by way of mandatory deposit, to the petitioner, duly discharged.
S.SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/FB/ Railways