PURNA CHANDRA NAYAK Vs. KESHAB CHANDRA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. K. Samantasinghar, the learned Counsel for the appellant. The present appellant at the relevant time i. e. , 27.11.1992 was the T. T. E. in the train Nilachal Express that was bound from New Delhi to Bhubaneswar. The complainant boarded the train in the reserved compartment which was a non-A. C. one. Because of some pandemonium by the persons of some political group in the station he could not occupy the seat in the reserved berth for which without taking any permission he was forced to enter into the A. C. Compartment. The present appellant was the T. T. E. It is alleged at the Kharagpur Railway Station he found the complainant to have occupied berth in the A. C. Compartment. He did not however raise any penalty for this. However it is the case of the complainant that he misbehaved and threw him out from the compartment and the complainant was bound to travel from Kharagpur to Bhubaneswar by Coromondal Express. Hence he lodged a complaint case against the T. T. E. before the District Forum.

(2.) The District Forum awarded costs of Rs.500/- and compensation of Rs.2,000/- and dismissed the complaint petition against the Railway Authorities. But since the present appellant was O. P. No.3 it directed for payment of compensation of Rs.2,000/- along with costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by such order the T. T. E. is in appeal. We have heard Mr. Samantasinghar, the learned Counsel for the T. T. E. and we have perused the impugned order. The crux of the point is whether the present appellant in his capacity as the T. T. E. committed any deficiency of service by forceably driving out the complainant from the A. C. Compartment without demanding any penalty or any fare for the A. C. berth.

(3.) So far this point is concerned no doubt the District Forum has held that the present appellant was proceeded with a departmental inquiry on the allegation of misbehaviour by the complainant. The said copy of the inquiry report is in record which indicates that the T. T. E. misbehaved with the complainant. So far as the defence of the present appellant is concerned, he stated that in fact he was not the person in charge of that compartment, but he was requested by his Co-T. T. E. to look after this disturbance for which he had to handle this matter but he did not misbehave.