Union of India vs SATENDRA PAL SINGH

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.4.2002 passed by District Consumer Forum I, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 102 of 1998 which has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ''Act'').

A complaint was initially filed by the complainant Satendra Pal Singh with the allegation that he is a handicapped person as certified by the competent doctor and he being an Advocate always travelled by rail from his local station to District Bareilly on the basis of monthly seasonal ticket issued by the opposite party-Railway administration under concession of the fare under the Railway Rules. On expiry of the ticket, the complainant on 24.9.1998 applied for fresh seasonal ticket for which forms were presented before the opposite party No. 1. However, opposite party No. 1 refused to allot seasonal ticket. Consequently the complainant had to obtain seasonal ticket on payment of full amount of fare on 25.9.1998, whereas seasonable ticket in respect of handicapped persons costs only 50% fare. Hence the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. The opposite parties in the written statement alleged that the application for concessional ticket presented by the complainant was improper as well as incomplete and it was without proper requirement under the rules. The handicap certificate should have been signed by the competent medical officer with full particulars under their signature and date. The certificate in question neither contained any date of issuance of certificate nor it had the period of validity. Hence the application was rejected. Further fully handicapped persons are allowed a seasonal ticket with an assistant and it is not allowed without disclosure or any name of the assistant. In the case of the complainant these details have not been mentioned.

The learned District Forum after perusing the evidence on record and hearing the submissions of the Counsel for both sides, allowed the complaint and ordered for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The payment was ordered to be made within one month.

AGGRIEVED the opposite parties, Railway Administration, have come in appeal. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record.

THE impugned judgment and order were criticised on the ground that there was no deficiency in service and the required material was not produced before the opposite party/appellant because of which the opposite parties were not in a position to grant the concessional seasonal ticket as claimed by the complainant, i.e., concession of 50% in fare. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that in an arbitrary way the facility of 50% concession as available to the disabled person was denied to the complainant which is a clear case of deficiency in service and the order of the learned District Forum is totally justified. In view of the provisions contained in contracting Tariff, Part I, Vol. II, page 101, the handicapped person to be entitled for 50% concession in MST, will have to produce attested/photostat copy of the certificate shown in Annexure 1/36, subject to other conditions regarding issue of MSTs/OSTs applicable to general public and then on production of these documents the Railway administration will have to apply the mind and then only the concession as claimed can be issued. THEse obviously were not done. THEre is nothing to show that the refusal was done mala fidely. It is clear in the instant case that for one month MST was issued and then on the very next month the facility of 50% concession was given when the Railway administration/appellant was satisfied. THE approach of the learned District Forum in our view is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently the impugned order is liable to be aside. ORDER THE appeal is allowed. THE judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside. No order as to the costs. Appeal allowed.