TICKET CHECKING INSPECTOR, R.V. RAO vs DUGGIRALA RAMAMANI

THIS is an application to condone the delay of 115 days in filing the appeal. What is stated in the petitioner''s affidavit is that the impugned order was passed on 28.10.2002. Though the copy was made ready on 9.12.2002 the same was not received by the petitioner. Hence their Counsel obtained certified copy on 11.2.2002 and the appeal was accordingly filed on 2.5.2003.

WE are not convinced with this explanation. The order copy was despatched by the District Forum under Dis. No. 4417 on 9.12.2002 to all the parties. It is not stated by the petitioner as to what has happened to the said order copy despatched to him, namely whether it is lost in transit or whether it is returned for want of correct address. In the absence of any averment in this regard we are of the opinion that the order copy is received by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, certified copy was obtained by his Counsel on 11.2.2003 and sent the same to the petitioner and others on 13.2.2003. But the appeal was filed on 2.5.2003. No explanation is forthcoming why the appeal could not be filed immediately on receipt of the copy on 13.2.2003 and why the petitioner waited to file the appeal till 2.5.2003. For this delay also there is no convincing explanation. Hence we are of the view that this inordinate delay of 115 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Even otherwise there are no merits in the appeal. The opposite parties in C.D. No. 117/2002 on the file of the District Forum, Visakhapatnam are the appellants.

THE complainant was travelling on 17.3.2001 in the train from Jagadalpur to Madras Central with pass issued by the Railways. But the T.T.E. collected Rs. 462/- towards railway fare and Rs. 432/- towards penalty and endorsed the same on the pass. As the said collection is illegal the petitioner filed the complaint for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 894/- with interest. THE only objection raised in the written version filed by the appellants is that the petitioner failed to produce the pass when demanded, hence the fare and penalty were collected. THE District Forum did not believe the version of the appellants and accordingly directed the 1st appellant to pay the said amount with interest at 12 per cent together with compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence the appeal. There is no dispute about the collection of Rs. 894/- by the 1st appellant. The only question is whether the said collection is legal or illegal. The fact that the complainant was travelling is also not disputed. What all disputed is that she failed to produce the pass when demanded. The complainant produced the original S.C. Railway pass dated 5.2.2001 marked as Ex. A 1 which is valid for the journey. The objection of the appellants that the complainant did not produce the pass is not accepted by the District Forum. We failed to understand why the complainant having obtained the pass valid for the journey would not show the same to the 1st appellant when demanded. Further the endorsement on the pass shows it was produced. Therefore, we cannot accept the version of the appellants that the complainant failed to produce the pass on demand during her journey.

ON the other hand the first appellant did not establish that the amount collected by him was remitted to the account of railways. The District Forum, therefore, rightly directed the 1st appellant to pay back Rs. 894/- illegally collected from the complainant with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 17.3.2001 till realisation together with damages of Rs. 1,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The District Forum also rightly observed that the 2nd appellant will take action against the 1st appellant for collecting the said amount illegally of course after holding due inquiry as the 1st appellant has made an endorsement. It is seen that the pass is valid upto 19.3.2001. The 1st appellant issued Ex. A 2 receipt after collecting original fare and penalty. When the complainant issued Ex. A 4 notice the 1st appellant did not state whether the said amount was remitted to the account of railways or not. Therefore, this is a serious matter on which inquiry should be made and appropriate action should be taken in case of failure to remit the said amount into the account of the Railways. Hence we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Forum is justified and proper and the same cannot be assailed on any ground. The appeal, therefore, failed and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances no costs. The copy of this order shall be sent to the Divl. Rly. Manager, East Coast Railways, Waltair. Appeal dismissed.