SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY Vs. D J MANUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay and the submissions made at bar, the delay of 106 days in filing this revision petition is condoned.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person are present and we have heard them at length.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the complainant, respondent herein, is a retired employee of the South Western Railway and consequent to his retirement, he was entitled to certain benefits and one such benefit was to have two sets of Post Retirement Complimentary Passes in a year. Admittedly, this benefit is to be provided in accordance with the provisions of Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986 (for short the Rules ). Under the Rules, passes to retired employees are issued subject to same conditions as are applicable to serving railway employees. The case of the complainant/respondent is that he was enjoying such benefit till his request for traveling double journey en-route over the portion Tiruchirapalli Thanjavur - Tiruchirapalli was rejected. As per clause (vii) and sub-rule (b) of General Rule 3 under Schedule-II of the Rules, privilege pass shall be issued for journey from the starting station to the destination station as desired by the concerned employee via shortest route provided that a longer route may be permitted on the privilege pass even if a double journey over a small portion is involved. In the present case, the request of complainant/respondent for the double journey from Tiruchirapalli Thanjavur - Tiruchirapalli was rejected by the OP/complainant and hence a consumer complaint was lodged before the District Forum by the complainant. On being noticed, the OP Authority resisted the complaint on two grounds. Firstly, it was pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer with reference to the issuance of privilege passes given by the OP Railway to him as a retired employee. Besides this, it was also pleaded that there was no deficiency in service in regard to the pass in question. On appraisal of the issues, the District Forum vide its order dated 15.07.2004 held that since the complimentary passes were issued after taking into consideration the services rendered by an employee on his retirement, the complainant is a consumer and the dispute is a consumer dispute and as such, the complaint was maintainable. However, the District Forum did not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP Authority and as such dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, the complainant/respondent challenged the same in appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore ( State Commission for short) which came to be allowed in terms of the following order dated 03.04.2006 passed by the State Commission:-