V.S.Balakrishnan vs SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY

A physically handicapped person approaches the Railway Authorities for giving him concession in train fare. Instead of giving him a helping hand the OPs have harassed him by refusing to issue a concessional ticket on a trivial ground.

THE parties in this Order are referred to as they were arrayed in the Complaint before the District Forum. This Appeal is by the complainant challenging the Order of the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, passed in Complaint No. 653/2005, dismissing the Complaint filed by the Complainant.

The facts as stated by the Complainant are that he is a Physically Handicapped person and, accordingly, he is entitled for concession in train fare. He went to Vijayanagar Extension Counter for Railway Reservation for purchasing a concessional train ticket for travelling from Bangalore to Chennai and accordingly he filled the form and gave it to the Clerk at the Counter along with the Certificate issued by the Doctor to show that he is a Physically Handicapped Person. But the Clerk refused to issue concessional ticket on the ground that the date of the Certificate did not tally with the date found in the seal of the Hospital and this amounts to alteration in the Certificate issued by the doctor. This has made the complainant to file the complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation on the ground of "Deficiency in Service on the part of the opposite parties (for short, "OPs"). The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground there is a difference in the date found in the Certificate and the date mentioned in the Seal of the Hospital which has been affixed on the said Certificate and this amounts to alteration in the Certificate and, therefore, refusal by the OPs to issue concessional ticket to the complainant does not amount to Deficiency in Service. The Order of the District Forum is under challenge by the complainant in this appeal.

MR. N.S. Prasad, learned Counsel for the OPs submitted that there is a difference in the dates mentioned in the Certificate in ink and the date mentioned in the Seal of the Hospital and this amounts to alteration in the Certificate; that under the Rules no alteration in the Certificate is permitted and therefore, the Clerk at the Counter was justified in refusing to issue concessional ticket. In support of this contention, he produced the Certificate issued to the complainant by the doctor for the purpose of getting concessional ticket. No doubt it is stated that no alteration in the Certificate is permitted. In the Certificate issued to the complainant the date of the Certificate is mentioned as 7.5.1999 in ink and in the seal of the Hospital the date mentioned is 14.11.2000. But the date 14.11.2000 refers to the date on which the Certificate was subsequently renewed and certified by the doctor. This has been totally overlooked by the OPs. Alteration means "making a change (Ref. Oxford Dictionary). In the instant case, no change is effected in the date. Assuming that there is a difference in the dates, the Certificate could have been considered as a valid Certificate from the date on which it was subsequently renewed by the doctor, namely 14.11.2000. Therefore, in our view, the OPs have refused to issue a concessional ticket to the complainant on a too trivial ground. It is nextly contended by the learned Counsel for the OPs that the complainant is not a "Orthopaedically Handicapped/Paraplegic person/patient" as defined under the Rules since the cause of loss of functional capacity in the Certificate is mentioned as "Trauma". Under the Rules, the persons who are entitled to avail concessional ticket are "Orthopaedically Handicapped/ Paraplegic person/patient who cannot travel without the assistance of an escort (and accompanied by an escort)". From this definition it is seen that even a patient who is not capable of travelling for himself is treated as a Physically Handicapped Person for the purpose of availing concessional ticket. The Doctor has also certified that the nature of handicap of the complainant is ''Permanent". Therefore, there was no reason for the Clerk at the Counter to refuse to accept the doctor''s Certificate and to issue concessional ticket to the complainant.

THE OPS ought to have borne in mind that the person who has approached them for showing concession is a Physically Handicapped Person. But instead of giving a helping hand to him, the OPS have harassed him. The refusal on the part of the Clerk to issue concessional ticket to the complainant amounts to "Deficiency in Service". Hence, we are of the view that the District Forum is not justified in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action of the Clerk does not amount to deficiency in service. In the instant case, the concession in fare to which the complainant is entitled is Rs. 312. This fact is not disputed by either of the parties. Since we have held that there is a Deficiency in Service on the part of the OPs, we hold that the complainant is entitled not only for refund of the concessional fare amounting to Rs. 312 but also he is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,500. In all the OPs are liable to pay Rs. 2,812 to the complainant.

IN the result, we pass the following Order: (1) The Appeal is allowed. The impugned Order is set aside. (2) The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part directing the OPs to pay Rs. 2,812 to the complainant within 30 days from today. (3) If the OPs fail to pay the amount as directed above, the OPs shall be liable to pay interest at 6% per annum on the sum of Rs. 2,812 from the date of the complaint filed before the District Forum till the date of realization. Appeal allowed