H.K.AGRAWAL vs CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 21.4.1995 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal in their Case No. 135/95 wherein the District Forum has come to the finding that the complaint deserves to be returned for presentation to the proper Forum or Court.

THE appellant has argued that this is not a case of refund of fare because according to him, Railways Act, 1989 provides for refund of passenger fare, only when travelling in lower class (Section 51(2)) and on cancellation of ticket (Section 52) whereas this is a case of charging fare second time in case of a lost RAC ticket. He argued that it is a case of deficiency in service and not a case of refund of fare and action should be taken against defaulting staff for charging fare second time. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the records of the case.

We find that Central Government has framed rules for refund of fares in the exercise of powers conferred under Section 60(1) read with Clause B of Sub-section (2) of the Railways Act, 1989 and Rule 17 of these Rules deals with lost/ misplaced/torn/mutilated tickets and Sub-rule (2) of this Rule 17 deals with reserved class of ticket. In Rule 2 of these Rules "Reserved tickets" are defined as under : "Reserved tickets" means a journey tickets on which a berth or seat has been reserved. And "RAC tickets" means a ticket on which a seat has been reserved against requisition for a berth and a berth may be subsequently provided against cancellation, if any. Thus "RAC tickets" comes in the category of "Reserved Tickets".

Rule 17(2) provides for reserved tickets as under : "If a reserved ticket is lost or misplaced or torn or mutilated an authorised person of the Railway Administration may at his or her discretion allow the passenger to travel against the same reserved accommodation by issuing a duplicate paper ticket on collection of an amount equivalent to 25% of the total fare. The particulars of the original ticket will be indicated on the duplicate paper ticket."

IN the instant case the reserved ticket of the appellant was lost and authorised person of the Railway Administration purported to act under the afore said Rule 17(2) and accordingly exercised his discretion to allow the passenger-appellant to travel against the same reserved accommodation by issuing a duplicate paper ticket. But, instead of collecting an amount equivalent to 25% of the total fare as provided in the rule, the authorised person charged full fare which amounted to an abuse of power inasmuch as the appellant was charged an amount far in excess of 25% which was the charge prescribed under the aforesaid Rule 17(2). Abuse of power by the authorised person of the Railway Administration resulting in financial loss to the appellant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the compensation for such deficiency is payable to the passenger complainant. Learned Counsel for the opposite party relied on various provisions like Sections 13(1)(b), 15 and 28 together of me Railway Claims Tribunal Act provide for exclusive jurisdiction of this Tribunal in respect of claims for refund of fares or part thereof. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we are of the opinion that making a charge for issuing a duplicate paper ticket in excess of 25% of the total fare as prescribed under Rule 17(2) amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and a claim for compensation for such deficiency is maintainable by the Consumer Forum. The amount charged for issuing a duplicate paper ticket in lieu of lost reserved ticket does not amount to charging of fare so as to give rise to a claim for refund of fare. In the light of the view taken herein above, we hold that the claimant-appellant is entitled to compensation for excess levy of charge for preparation of a duplicate paper ticket as well as for the mental tension and harass ment on account of being charged excessive amount not permitted under the rule. We think that the complainant appellant should be held entitled to refund of the excess charge which amounts to 75% of the total fare as well as compensation for mental tension and harassment equivalent to 25% of the amount of fare. The appellant-complainant should also be held entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the recovery of charge in question i.e. 26.11.1993 till the actual date of payment.

ACCORDINGLY, we direct the opposite party to refund to the appellant-complainant an amount of Rs. 128/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 26.11.1993 till the actual date of payment. The opposite party shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 200/- as cost of the proceedings incurred by the complainant. This amount shall be paid to the complainant-appellant by the opposite party within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order where after in the event of default of payment the complainant-appellant shall be entitled to further interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Appeal allowed. ______________