CHIEF COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT vs COIMBATORE DISTRICT CONSUMER AWARENESS CENTRE

THE appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore dated 8.7.93 in O.P. 597/92. THE opposite parties are the appellants.

THE Complainants have purchased tickets from Coimbatore to Bombay and travelled from Coimbatore to Bombay on 10.4.92. When the Train Ticket Examiner checked the tickets at Gundakal Railway Station, he found that the Complainants have lost their tickets. THE Train Ticket Examiner has therefore collected a full fare of Rs. 2,325/-. Alleging that this amounted to deficiency of service and negligence, the Complainants have filed this complaint for recovery of the amount. The opposite parties contended that since the Complainant could not produce the tickets on demand by the competent authority, they were bound to pay the amount of fare and penalty as per Sections 50 to 55 and 138 of Railways Act of 1989. There was therefore no negligence on the part of the opposite party in collecting the fare with penalty. It is further contended that in view of Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the complaint is not maintainable.

The District Forum found that there was deficiency of service and ordered the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs. 2,335/- and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 500/- and costs of Rs. 250/-. It is this order that is challenged in the appeal.

SECTION 13 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act of 1987 lays down that the Claims Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all such jurisdiction, power and authority as were exercisable immediately before that day by any Civil Court or a Claims Commissioner in respect of the claims for refund of fares or part thereof or for refund of any freight paid in respect of animals or good entrusted to a railway administration to be carried by railway administration. This Commission has held in A.P. 88/ 91 and A.P. 95/92 that Sec.13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a bar to the maintainability of any complaint before this Commission in respect of matters enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sec. 13(1) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act. The claim filed in this complaint relates to refund of fare which comes specifically within Sec. 13(1)(b) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act and the complaint is not therefore maintainable. The District Forum has not considered this aspect of the matter, and the order of the District Forum cannot therefore stand. On merits, we are unable to accept the finding of the district Forum. The Complainants have no doubt purchased the tickets from Coimbatore to Bombay, but when the Train Ticket Examiner checked their tickets, they were found missing. Under the provision of Secs. 50 to 55 and 138 of Railways Act, 1989 the Railway Administration is entitled to collect the fare from the passenger who failed to produce the ticket. Hence the collection of the fare and penalty by the Railway Officer at Gundakkal from the passengers is in accordance with the law and cannot be termed as negligence or deficiency of service. The claim must therefore fail on merits as well.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed but without costs throughout. Appeal allowed.