Union of India vs Dalip Kaur

-IT is an appeal against the order dated 30.5.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) along with 5 other named members of her family got reserved six railway tickets through Santokh Singh, one of the family members of the complainant at Rajpura Station for travelling from Rajpura to Nanded on 24.5.2001 vide ticket No. 53114778. Return ticket No. 53114779 for the same six named members for train No. 2715 on 29.5.2001 from Nanded to Rajpura were also got reserved. The reservation was made on the basis of the duly filled up forms by Santokh Singh. It is then stated in the complaint that the complainant along with the named members, while on return journey from Nanded to Rajpura on 29.5.2001, in Sachkhand Super Express, were checked by the Ticket Collector. The Ticket Collector found that on the return journey ticket No. 53114779 seat No. 20 LB was printed for male whereas it was being occupied by the complainant, a female. The complainant and her companions apprised the Ticket Collector that the complainant was travelling on return journey and due to the mistake of the booking clerk, seat reserved against her name had been printed as ''M'' instead of ''F'' i.e. female. The Ticket Collector did not accept this explanation and charged Rs. 594/- as penalty vide receipt No. 122347 dated 29.5.2001. It was then stated in the complaint that due to negligence of the booking clerk of the Rajpura Junction, the complainant suffered financial loss as well as mental harassment, which could not be compensated at any cost. It was a clear-cut deficiency and gross-negligence on the part of opposite party No. 3 for which complainant suffered a lot, complainant was also harassed at the hand of Ticket Collector and she was forced to pay Rs. 594/- as penalty in spite of having a ticket duly issued by opposite party No. 3. It was then stated in the complaint that the complainant was entitled for refund of Rs. 594/- plus compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental torture and harassment suffered due to deficient service on the part of the appellant-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties). Opposite parties contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the jurisdiction of the District Forum was barred in view of the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of Sections 15 and 28 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act; that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or any of their employees and the complainant could not take benefit of her own wrong. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant was intercepted while travelling on seat No. 20 LB meant for a male. It was denied if the complainant got the reservation made or herself filled the form. It was admitted that the reservation was got made through Santokh Singh who submitted the filled-up form for reservation and the same was done as per the norms mentioned in the booking form. It was also averred in the written reply that it was the duty of the passenger to examine the ticket and get it changed before leaving the booking office counter and if there was any mistake it could not be rectified afterwards. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

After having gone through the evidence and after having heard the Counsel for the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence this complaint.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite parties and the representative of the complainant and have gone through the detailed order of the District Forum as well as the record minutely. Question of jurisdiction has half-heartedly been pressed by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties and rightly so in view of an order of the Hon''ble National Commission referred to in the order of the District Forum itself. Thus, we hold that the District Forum had got the jurisdiction to decide the case.

ON merits also, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that while submitting the reservation filled-up forms against the name of Dalip Kaur in the column of ''sex'' ''M'' i.e., male has been written by the person who applied for reservation and as such issuance of the ticket against male member was not a deficiency. He has supported his contention on the basis of the photocopy of the complaint Ex. R7. In Ex. R7 at the end instead of Dalip Kaur, Dalip Singh is typed. What the learned Counsel for the opposite parties wanted to stress was that if the complainant could describe herself as Dalip Singh in the complaint filed in the District Forum, similar mistake could be expected while filling up the form for which the concerned booking clerk could not be held responsible. This contention has rightly been held conjectural by the District Forum. The mistake in filling the form is not in the name but the sex as against the name of Dalip Kaur, ''M'' is alleged to have been written by the person who filled up the form. In the original complaint filed with the District Forum Dalip Kaur has been typed and not Dalip Singh. It has rightly been held by the District Forum that how and under what circumstances the name of Dalip Singh had appeared on the copy Ex. R-7 need not be gone into as it was not going to change the position. The question for determination in the case in hand is as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of booking clerk. The complainant had asked for the original reservation form but instead of producing the same, photocopy was produced before the District Forum. There is clear over-writing on the word ''F'', written in the column of ''Sex'' against the name of Dalip Kaur. It has rightly been held by the District Forum that it is beyond comprehension that Santokh Singh who filled up the reservation form would write ''M'' against Dalip Kaur when in the other form for the journey on 24.5.2001 from Rajpura to Nanded, he had written ''F'' (female). The over-writing is a clear indication that someone has tried to over-write word ''M'' on word ''F''. This cannot be expected from Santokh Singh. Even the booking clerk should not have expected to write the word ''M'' against Dalip Kaur. We have also gone through this document. It has rightly been held by the District Forum that the overwriting seems to be an effort to wriggle out of the allegation of deficiency levelled against the booking clerk in the complaint. Otherwise, there would not have been any hitch for the opposite parties to produce the original form when demanded by the complainant. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties also urged that even if it is taken that ticket was wrongly issued and it was for the complainant to have pointed out the defect before leaving the counter and for that negligence the booking clerk could not be held responsible. This contention of the learned Counsel has also been rightly negatived by the District Forum by holding as under: "True the traveller who obtains the ticket has to be careful and cautious to ensure that the same has been properly issued without any mistake. But when the other ticket for travelling from Rajpura to Nanded was correctly issued the failure of the person namely Santokh Singh who got the seats reserved to note the mistake is not enough to exonerate the deficiency of the booking clerk, more so, when efforts appear to have been made to overwrite on word ''F'' in the reservation form. In similar circumstances in K. Dillibabu v. The General Manager Southern Railway & Anr., II (2001) CPJ 355, Hon''ble Tamil Nadu State Commission held the concerned Clerk of the Railway Authorities responsible for deficiency as he failed to include the name of the complainant in the chart though the tickets were issued to them and due to this mistake the ticket holders were not allowed to travel and had to wait for the next train."

We agree with the reasoning given by the District Forum and repel the contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. In the last, the Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the Ticket Collector on noticing the complainant travelling against the male ticket, imposed the penalty. That contention has also been rightly repelled by the District Forum. Deficiency/negligence is claimed on the part of the booking clerk, who wrongly issued the ticket in the name of Dalip Kaur as ''M'' instead of ''F''. The opposite parties are, thus, liable for the fact of their own booking clerk. It was certainly a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

IN view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 1,000/-. Appeal dismissed.