ADDL. DVL. RLY. MANAGER, DIV. OFFICE vs VALMATHI SRI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

THIS appeal, by the opposite party, is directed against the order dated 9.9.1991, passed by the District Forum, Gulbarga, in Complaint No. 93/ 91, directing the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 502/-with interest thereon. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: 1. The Complainant, a resident of Rajmundry, East Godavari District, A.P. State, had gone to Yadgir, Gulbarga District, on some personal work and on his return journey, he purchased a railway ticket from Yadgir to Rajmundry by Rayalseema Express Train on 2.2.1991, At the booking counter, at Yadgir, he tendered a sum of Rs. 88/- for the ticket. But the booking clerk demanded a further sum of Rs. 2/- as supplementary charges and so on taking a sum of Rs. 90.00 from the complainant, gave ticket from Yadgir to Rajmundry by Rayalseema Express Train. The Complainant found that the railway fare was only Rs. 88/- and the Railway Authorities at Yadgir had obtained from him an excess fare of Rs. 2 / - and so he came back to Yadgir on 6.3.1991 and demanded from the concerned Authorities at Yadgir to refund the said excess amount, but the Authorities at Yadgir refused to refund and when he demanded a complaint book to write his complaint, the Railway Officials did not give the complaint book and humiliated him.

THE Complainant thereafter issued a legal notice to the General Manager, Southern Railway, Secunderabad with a copy to the Assistant Station Master, Yadgir. But when he did not get any necessary response from them, filed the complaint seeking compensation. Opposite Party No. 1, is the Assistant Station Master, Yadgir Railway Station, Yadgir and O.P. No. 2 is the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, General Branch, Guntakal.

Opposite Party No. 1 had refused to take notice of the complaint and O.P. No. 2, though served, had remained absent. So no version came to be filed by the Opposite Parties.

DURING enquiry the complainant examined himself as PW 1 and got Exs. P.l to P.13, marked in evidence. The District Forum, on consideration of this material, placed on record by the complainant, held that the Opposite Party committed deficiency of service and in that view awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 500/- to the complainant and also directed a sum of Rs. 2/- excess collected to be refunded to the complainant.

WE have called for the records and received. WE have also heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Ex. P.l, is the copy of the ticket for which he had paid Rs. 90/-. The Complainant has given the evidence as to how he tried his best to get back the excess amount collected from him by the Opposite Parties; issued legal notice and when he failed to get proper response from the Opposite Parties, filed the complaint. Ex.P-12 is the copy of the letter dated 1.7.1991, written by the Chief Commercial Superintendent to the learned Counsel of the complainant which clearly makes out that a sum of Rs. 2/- was collected in excess from the complainant. The material part of it, reads thus: "as seen from the EFT 654702 issued by SS/Yadgir it was issued for 7430 and nothing was mentioned about Konark Express on the ticket. If it was issued for journey by 2120 Ex: SC it should have been mentioned on the EFT. The Rs. 2/- S/Charges were unnecessarily collected from the party. Please arrange to enquire into the matter thoroughly and take up with the staff responsible for the complaint."

This clearly makes out that Rs. 2/- was collected by the Opposite Parties from the complainant in excess.

THE contention of the Opposite Partiesthe appellants that the connecting train in Secunderabad for Rajmundry was Konark Super Fast Express Train and so additional charge of Rs. 2/- was collected. But from the letter of the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Ex. P. 12, it is clear that no such reference to the Super Fast Express Train Konark was made on the ticket and so Opposite Parties were not entitled to collect from the complainant any additional charge.

HAVING regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any good reason to interfere in the finding recorded by the District Forum, holding that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency of service in collecting the excess amount of Rs. 2/- from the complainant. ORDER In the result, therefore, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.