STATION SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL RAILWAY vs SHARAD AGARWAL

THIS is an appeal filed by the opposite party, against the order dated 4.10.1995 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior in their Case No. 1168/93, wherein the Forum has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as proceeding expenses for charging extra fare and penalty etc. from him despite the fact that he was holding a valid monthly season ticket as well as super-fast surcharge ticket.

HEARD the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the written arguments of the respondent. The appellants have not opposed the contents of Para 2 of the complaint that the complainant was in possession of a valid monthly season ticket and that he also held a super fast surcharge ticket purchased by him from Gwalior Railway Station after showing M.S.T. at the booking window.

The arguments of the appellants are as under : (i) That since the cause of action arose at Agra (U.P.); the District Forum, Gwalior had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (ii) That M.S.T. holders are not entitled to travel by 2301 Goa Express. (iii) That the complainant had alighted from three-tier coach, whereas M.S.T. holders are not permitted to travel in three tier coaches in super fast trains. (iv) That the District Forum has wrongly disbelieved the statement of ticket collector Hari Singh.

SO far as the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, since the M.S.T. and super-fast surcharge tickets were purchased from Gwalior, the cause of action arose there. Even if it is accepted that cause of action arose at Agra, according to provisions of Section 112(a) and (b) as amended by Act 50 of 1993, the District Forum, Gwalior still had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The argument, that M.S.T. holders are not entitled to travel by Goa Express is not supported by any documentary evidence whatsoever. No rules or instruction, in this regard have been filed, by the appellants. Besides this, the Railway has not denied the contents of Para 2 of the complaint that the complainant had purchased the super fast surcharge ticket from Railway booking window, Gwalior, after showing the M.S.T. If this surcharge ticket was issued after seeing the M.S.T., the Railway could not have challenged its validity for travel by Goa Express unless it was made known publicly or specifically to the purchaser that M.S.T. traveller was not entitled to travel by Goa Express. Except the statement of Shri Hari Singh ticket collector, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant had travelled in a three-tier coach. According to the statement of Shri Hari Singh the complainant was not caught at platform No. 2, while alighting from the train but he was caught by Shri Hari Singh while passing through R.M.S, gate on platform No. 1. In cross-examination Shri Hari Singh has admitted that there are four railway lines in between platform Nos. 1 and 2 and the distance from his gate to the last sleeper coach of Goa Express was about 100 feet and he was not able to see the sight clearly, Shri Hari Singh could not give reply to the question as to why did he not mention in Ex. P2 that he charged for three-tier coach. The fare to be charged from a ticketless traveller found on the platform should normally be ordinary second class fare of the train which arrived. Shri Hari Singh was not T.T.E. (Train Travelling Examiner) nor did he check the complainant inside the train. He was a ticket collector on duty at platform No. 1. He did not catch the complainant red-handed, alighting from a three-tier coach, on platform No. 2. Naturally, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the complainant.

SINCE the complainant had a valid M.S.T. and a valid super-fast surcharge ticket as explained earlier he could not have been treated as a "passenger-without-ticket", unless he would have been found by a T.T.E. to have been travelling in a three-tier coach or by a ticket collector on the platform while alighting just before him, from a three-tier coach. Last point for consideration is the preliminary objection raised by the appellant before the District Forum in their application dated3.11.1993.This complaint being, not merely for refund of fare, but mainly for compensation for deficiency in service was very much maintainable before the District Forum. Moreover the Forum has not ordered refund of excess fare but has ordered payment of compensation and proceeding expenses for deficiency in service. Hence this argument also of the Railways is not acceptable that the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is barred under Sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act. As such we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum awarding compensation etc. and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.