RAILWAY BOARD Vs. SWAGAT KUMAR MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed by Chairman, Railway Board and others (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellants') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which had allowed the complaint of Swagat Kumar Mohanty (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent') alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants. In his complaint before the State Commission, Respondent/Complainant who is a Commander in the Indian Navy had stated that on 5th July, 1995, he along with his two minor children were traveling in the Second AC compartment in the Konark Express from Mumbai to Bhubaneswar for which he had been issued AC II tier warrants and which he exchanged with travel authority No. 197485 on 13.6.1995 and got in lieu Soldiers' tickets along with reservation slip for all three births. Immediately after Kalyan Station his tickets and other travel documents were checked and found to be in order by the TTC. Next morning after Wadi Station another TTC came for checking and asked the Respondent to produce the relevant tickets. Appellant immediately could not produce the soldier's ticket as it was misplaced. He requested the TTC to allow him some time to search his baggage to locate it and in the meantime showed him his Armed Forces Identity Card and the reservation slip which was earlier checked and found correct by the Railway staff. The TTC did not accept the above documents and neither did he allow the Respondent more time to find the misplaced ticket but instead Respondent was humiliated and asked to pay Rs. 2,631 towards fare and penalty. Since the Respondent did not have the required money, he borrowed the same from co-passengers and paid it to the TTC. However, later at around 9.30 p.m. Respondent found the ticket lying between the upper bed and the bulkhead position. Since, Respondent felt that he had been subjected to unnecessary harassment and humiliation causing him mental agony and financial loss by the TTC, he filed a complaint on grounds of deficiency in service before the State Commission and sought compensation of Rs. 6 lakh as also Rs. 2,631 being the refund for the tickets.

(2.) Appellants on being served filed a rejoinder denying allegations of deficiency in service and, inter alia, stated that Respondent was politely asked by the concerned TTC to produce the tickets which he failed to do as admitted by the Respondent himself. It was further contended that on the Reservation Slip, it is clearly recorded that "the ticket would be valid only along with traveling authority quoted, if any" and as a Senior Officer of the Indian Navy, Respondent could not claim to be ignorant of these instructions. The TTC was justified in asking the Respondent to pay the excess fare as envisaged under Sections 54, 55 and 128(i)(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 for not producing the valid traveling authority.

(3.) The State Commission after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint by observing as follows: